7 ms·

> They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though. > They are being arrested for being rude about it. Got it. Arrested for poor taste. Hard to see

> They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though. > They are being arrested for being rude about it. Got it. Arrested for poor taste. Hard to see the justification for that in a democracy?

dijit 4y ago
You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners regardless of who the dead person is. People were arrested at Margaret Thatchers funeral for the same thing. It’s not rocket science. You’re not allowed to do that.
- ISL 4y ago
  In the United States, with certain limits [1], one can picket funerals and be massively disrespectful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_limiting_funeral_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_l...
  - bawolff 4y ago
    So? the US is a weird, barely functioning, democracy. Why would anyone want to emulate it?
    - junofan 4y ago
      Not arresting protestors is probably a good thing to emulate regardless of your feelings about the US.
      - gambiting 4y ago
        Why does everything have to be so extremist with the US? Everything taken to the absolute maximum imaginable? Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.
        mwint 4y ago
        USAian here: > Protests should be allowed They are. > destroying public property Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. > advocating violence or hate Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime. Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        > > advocating violence or hate > Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat. Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech. You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
        Vecr 4y ago
        This is correct, I'm not sure why it's being down-voted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        Eh, it's an ugly truth and my examples could have been less extreme. Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1]. For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion: > a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.” [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
      - bawolff 4y ago
        as another example, US lets you bring guns to protests, i am 100% on board with how my government (canada) arrests any idiots who show up with a firearm to a protest. I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want 100% free for all.
        HideousKojima 4y ago
        When you have counterprotestors/rioters throwing bricks/molotovs/etc. with the tacit consent of the local government, going to a protest armed can be the only way to safely exercise your constitutional right to protest.
        bawolff 4y ago
        What is with americans and might makes right? What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
        gjs278 4y ago
        HideousKojima 4y ago
        >What is with americans and might makes right? The fact that all state power eventually comes down to men with guns. >What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. You either get out of there or you shoot back, that's really not a hard question. And to your second question yes, especially if the other side is shooting or threatening to shoot. Safer if you have guns as well than only they have guns. And just look at Kyle Rittenhouse, he would have been dead if he hadn't been armed. The third person he shot straight up said that he would have shot Kyle if Kyle hadn't vaporized his bicep first. >For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face? Once again it makes you safer, because they can't risk throwing molotovs at you from out in the open. Your being armed helps you control when and from where they could possibly attack you with molotovs or whatever.
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      This is exactly why I refuse to walk. I'm told that Hitler once walked.
    - deskamess 4y ago
      What makes it weird? Why is it barely functioning?
      - wutbrodo 4y ago
        I think you're just seeing an example of the raging inferiority complex that many members of the rest of the West exhibit towards the US. There's a noticeable cultural difference along certain axes, with both significant downsides and significant upsides for both sides of the cultural divide. But there are many out there who aren't cognitively capable of processing the breathtaking nuance of global cultural differences, and unsurprisingly they end up with a reductive view of the culture they don't understand (same as it ever was). My personal experience of backpacking around the world was replete with lectures from 25-year-old European women about the US's issues. They were of such poor quality that I mostly just smiled and shrugged it off, knowing that it'd be a waste of my vacation to try and explain to them the nuances of cultural difference. But I had the delightful catharsis of schooling a particularly-obnoxious British girl on her country's role as the primary contender for history's greatest supervillain (unsurprisingly, her grasp of history and politics was.... poor).
        ziftface 4y ago
        Okay but our democracy is actually barely functional. It's not relevant to the above conversation but it is a true statement.
      - tstrimple 4y ago
        See the dozens of voting restrictions which were passed in various states over the last two years. See the 200 year old compromise with slave holder states which is still in effect to this day. See the consistent disenfranchisement efforts over the last decade led by a particular major political party. See any and all voter rights laws being stymied by that same party. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2022 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...
      - bawolff 4y ago
        Well to start, right now there is 24/7 news coverage about how an ex-president took state documents with him on his way out. Seperation of office from officeholder is a pretty key part of a functioning democracy (hell even the british monarchy can do that one). Or how about how everyone knows the political affiliations of supreme court judges? In a normal country judges are apolitical.
  - azalemeth 4y ago
    This is a very clear distinction in the UK. There are a number of constraints on someone's rights to make loud noises in the UK, of which probably Section 5(1) of the 1986 Public Order Act is most often used -- it states "(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)" with all of the usual lawyerly finness about what (b) means being defined by common law precedent and the right to freedom of expression largely being worked out by the courts together with reference to the ECHR. Note that things like animal rights protestors making loud noises at university graduations (where the graduates have nothing to do with animal experiments) have successfully been challenged under this statute – the usual remedy is a high court injunction relocating them to somewhere visible and nearby, but out of earshot, of the thing they are protesting against. It is worth noting that a long-running tradition in the UK is that if a policeman disagrees with a piece of legislation and the opportunity arises to challenge it favourably in court, he arrests somebody under the legislation in question in what may be favourable but reasonable circumstances (favourable to the defendant) in order to circumscribe the limitations of the act in question. As a consequence, in many ways, I therefore think that this may also be a challenge by police officers to the validity of the conservative government's latest legislation that aims to ban "disruptive" protests, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was largely modified to deal with the (IMO effective) protests of the Insulate Britain campaign who recently brought major motorways to a crawl. It is a deeply divisive and very authoritarian bill, and would cover this situation. Specifically, it provides that: "[...] police forces are allowed to place restrictions on protests they believe would otherwise constitute an existing offence of public nuisance, including imposing starting and finishing times and noise limits, and be able to consider actions by one individual as protests under provisions of the Act. Protestors disobeying such instructions from the police may be committing a criminal offence." In my opinion, this has already been used to stifle what I find to be legitimate protest – "on 28 June 2022, the day the act came into force, anti-Brexit activist Steve Bray had his amplification equipment seized by police under the 2011 Police Reform Social Responsibility Act. The 2022 act extends the area around the House of Commons in which protest is restricted under the 2011 act." [1]. As recognised by the police, positing the possibility of transitioning to a republic (from a constitutional monarchy) is almost certainly a clear-cut case of a legitimate piece of protest, and so if someone _did_ protest accordingly _without_ being rude and disruptive I think this would be a perfect opportunity for the courts to throw out the charge. Edit: Further bits of fun law – "public nuisance" is both a tort and a very old legal concept, recommended effectively for removal and updating from the criminal statutes by the Law Commission in 2015 [2]. It is described quite formally in many words (c.f. [2]) but more usefully defined by the fact that it typically consists either of an environmental nuisance, such as carrying on works producing excessive noise or smells, or of offensive or dangerous behaviour in public, such as noisy parties and hanging from bridges. It also includes obstructing the public highway, though now this is also a statutory offence. Public nuisance therefore is a much lower bar to offence than either the public order act or breach of the peace would be; and unlike those acts there is no requirement for a mens rea: there is no requirement that the defendant intended or was reckless about whether his conduct caused the relevant kind of harm. This is quite a key point as it de facto lets the police decide what the line is, with no input required on the part of the defendant. I would be very interested to see a reconciliation of these rights with that of freedom to expression and the broader constitutional right to protest in the UK. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentencing_and_Courts_Act_2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentencing_and_... [2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/438194/50076_Law_Commission_HC_213_bookmark.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - LilBytes 4y ago
    I was about to quote the same church. Personally I think the UK law got it right on this one.
  - metacritic12 4y ago
    That section you linked shows that free-speech is indeed limited within a certain radius of certain funerals.
    - junofan 4y ago
      I suggest you read the whole section.
      - metacritic12 4y ago
        Are you referring to Synder v Phelps where the Supreme Court held that a distant (1000 ft away) protest didn't qualify for monetary (tort) damages for the deceased's family? Because that case doesn't strike down the state laws preventing protests in close proximity. It just ruled that the private citizen can't get lots of money for emotional distress caused by a protest.
        bourgeoismedia 4y ago
        It barred IIED claims specifically because they were targeted at activities protected by the 1st amendment.
  - mc32 4y ago
    But this is a case in the UK. They have different laws and observe different decorum. Even in the US I would think protesting a funeral to be in extremely poor taste, no matter the target. What’s that Latin phrase about the recently dead?
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      Yeah but the UK is where you can get arrested for making your girlfriend's pug do a Nazi salute as a joke (but somehow Father Ted doing similar Nazi jokes gets a pass)
      - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
        >making your girlfriend's pug do a Nazi salute Wait, what? Pretty sure dogs don't have the anatomical capability to do a nazi salute. At best they can just lift a leg up, but is that really a nazi salute?
        HideousKojima 4y ago
        For your enlightenment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - gerdesj 4y ago
        Citation needed but I suspect you are probably right about the pug. Father Ted is Irish as in Republic of Ireland as in not UKoGB - we share a very, very strange border. Having said that, Father Ted was turned down by RTE for being too Irish and was eventually financed by the BBC! Thankfully it eventually aired because it is absolutely belting.
        aembleton 4y ago
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    Regardless of the legalities, it's not a behaviour anyone should be proud of. If shitting in the street were legal would you complain when people passed a law to stop your bad behaviour?
  - thomassmith65 4y ago
    That's hardly something to be proud of. God, I hate ideology.
  - some_random 4y ago
    Unlike the US, there is no right to free speech in the UK
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Once again, Americans are proud of the fact they can protest at funerals.
  - defen 4y ago
    The alternative is that you can be arrested for saying something mean at a funeral. I prefer the American system.
    - munk-a 4y ago
      I don't - my father's funeral is literally two weeks away. Some relatives that my mother doesn't get along with at all aren't invited - they've never been particularly close and it'll be healthier for everyone if they don't stir shit in a time of healing. This isn't a case of protestors being repeatedly ignored - the public discussion about the monarchy is unfolding in most media outlets right now and other forms of protest are still quite available.
      - defen 4y ago
        Sorry about your father. I don't like using personal examples since emotions can be strong, especially at a time like this. If they were to show up and stand peacefully with a sign, I don't think that should be illegal. But if they did that it would certainly show the rest of the family what kinds of people they are.
        munk-a 4y ago
        I mean - whenever we're talking about funerals it's an extremely personal event for some. Just because you can't see the person - or it's a person of privilege - doesn't mean it doesn't hit just as hard. Additionally, while I think this is extremely unhealthy mentally, there was a not insignificant proportion of Britain that felt they had a personal relationship with the queen even if they never met her for tea.
      - gjs278 4y ago
- throwawaymanbot 4y ago
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  In Oxford someone was arrested for shouting "who elected him" during the proclamation of the new king so it's not just about respecting a funeral (which is understable) or unacceptable language. But in fairness to the police there seems to be a mass fervour at the moment and they may actually be doing the hecklers a service by taking them away for their own safety...
  - account-5 4y ago
    And then de-arrested.
    - jjgreen 4y ago
      That arrest can still see you barred from certain jobs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29784497 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29784497
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      Why do you arrest someone just to de-arrest them minutes later once there are away? I think this rather proves the point that the police knew that person was not actually committing an offence but wanted to take them away.
  - krona 4y ago
    This is the point. 'Fear or provocation of violence' is an offence since it precipitates violence, its a provocation that 'might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control', which would be quite dreadful!
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      How does a reasonable, sober person lose self-control over some random dude shouting at a celebrity?
    - 4y ago
- bogomipz 4y ago
  >"You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners regardless of who the dead person is." The word hurling in the context of insults or obscenities means vocalizing them in a very audible fashion. The article states that the woman at St Giles was not audibly protesting but rather holding a sign. Given that she was quietly expressing her opinion, tasteful or not, it seems she could have been quietly removed without being arrested. >"In widely seen photos, a woman holding a sign reading "Abolish monarchy" and "F*** imperialism" was arrested on Sunday at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh, where the queen's body is to lie at rest until Tuesday. Further the object of their protest was the institution and neither the mourners or the deceased. The other two people mentioned in the article who were vocal, were outside on public streets and not in a Church. The article states they were near parade barricades. Again the object of their protest was the institution and it was being done on public streets. Surely you are allowed to express your discontent about an institution on a public street. That's not rocket science. >"And in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall." Again we have a woman who was holding up a sign on a public street "near Westminster Hall."
- dTal 4y ago
  You will also be arrested for shouting "who elected him" at the new King's proclamation ceremony apparently. These tired strawmen need to stop. Anti-royalists are being arrested for expressing anti-royal views in inconvenient places, not "hurling obscenities at a funeral".
zardo 4y ago
A democracy certainly doesn't need rules to protect the dignity of it's royal family.
- ysleepy 4y ago
  Not a royal privilege though, the commoners enjoy the right to an undisturbed funeral too.
  - misnome 4y ago
    Ah, so the entire country counts as the site of a funeral now?
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      It does if it's for a royal, I guess.
    - type0 4y ago
      Yeah and why not entire Commonwealth then?
googlryas 4y ago
It's not being arrested for poor taste. They're being arrested for their actions, not their beliefs. Is there some democracy somewhere which doesn't have a public nuisance/breaching the peace style law?
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Let's just say that the hecklers have been arrested much, much faster (pretty much instantly, apparently) than the "eco-activists" who recently blocked roads, petrol stations, even motorways...
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    I think we agree that all disruptive assholes should be arrested quickly.
    - teamonkey 4y ago
      Definitely, absolutely not.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- type0 4y ago
  UK isn't a democracy it's a monarchy
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    It purports to be both a non-republican democracy and a monarchy.
    - cma 4y ago
      The king/queen can dissolve parliament: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Uni... It is only by convention that he doesn't, that will only last until you get a bad king/queen and thr right opportunity.
metacritic12 4y ago
Is stealing someone else's wallet also in poor taste? Yes. If that thief gets arrested, is it just because it is poor taste? No. Same thing with hurling obscenities at a funeral.
dqh 4y ago
Do you really think you should have the right to disrupt the funeral of someone you don’t like?
- pharmakom 4y ago
  What if the funeral is a 10 day extravaganza at tax payer expense whilst some families are choosing between eating and heating?
  - gambiting 4y ago
    I think we're reaching some insane point in this discussion when a funeral of one of the most well known people in the world, where leaders of literally every major superpower are coming over to pay their respects is called an extravaganza.
    - dTal 4y ago
    - aembleton 4y ago
      > where leaders of literally every major superpower are coming over to pay their respects Is Putin coming?
      - autoexec 4y ago
        Considering they've failed to take Ukraine I'm not Russia gets to keep it's "Superpower" status anymore. Even if they eventually managed it in the following weeks/months/years, that's still just pathetic. I'm not saying I wanted Russia to invade or beat Ukraine, I think the war was beyond stupid and unnecessary but it sure has made Russia look weak and dumb. Not the kind of thing that "projects power on a global scale."
  - rlpb 4y ago
    Since about half the country seem to want to show up, it seems reasonable and proportionate. I wouldn't have a problem with some celebrity's funeral being a huge affair either, even if I didn't care for that celebrity myself. In case I'm misunderstood, I don't feel strongly either way about the British royalty, but I'm OK with allowing a significant proportion of the population being left alone to get on with what ceremony they want to do, given that they want to do it.
babypuncher 4y ago
I think it's fair to make certain events, like funerals, off-limits to protest. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  > Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service. For trespassing. This example has nothing to do with speech.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    It has the same amount as the thing this article is about, which makes it a good comparison (the article also has nothing to do with the content of the speech)
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      The article definitely has to do with the content of the speech: > Similar reports emerged Monday, including one case involving a man who was seen being forcibly removed from a parade barrier after shouting at the royal procession leading to the cathedral. He was reportedly heckling Prince Andrew. This comparison just has nothing to do with speech at all. It’s categorically different. You’d get arrested for breaking into the Oval Office even if you remained silent the whole time.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  You can hurl all the obscenities you like at the President. You might be removed from the property but you won't be shot.
  - babypuncher 4y ago
throwawaylinux 4y ago
They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that.
- lupire 4y ago
  Fragile, civilized. Potato, potato.
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  > They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that. And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    That's like complaining that you will get arrested for having sex in the middle of the street, but sex in a film is somehow fine(surely it's because movie producers have money and are in cahoots with the government, and not for any other, more logical reason, like the fact that art forms, no matter how poor in taste, are protected by society).
    - wutbrodo 4y ago
      In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" argument than the movie production? Did the latter get a permit for Nazi jokes? (Sincere question, maybe they did: UK speech norms and laws are incredibly alien to me)
      - type0 4y ago
        > In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" The rules are different for regular plebs, that's as simple as that. And the lesson is that everyone should know their place.
koheripbal 4y ago
Screeching profanities at a funeral march should be a minor crime. ...but perhaps more importantly, you should just be ashamed of your childish behaviour.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  And yet nowhere in the article was it mentioned that someone was "screeching profanities." There were people who were holding signs and there were people that expressed their opinions without profanity during the ascension ceremonies. In fact the only screeching of any referenced in the article was Twitter post with a video where people are screeching "God Save the King."
- ziftface 4y ago
  Even if you think that should be a crime, why should that apply to the funeral of a representative or government official? People should be able to show their distaste of such a public figure however they want, even if it makes you feel weird about it.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Someone was arrested for yelling "Who elected him?". Is that considered a profanity now?
munk-a 4y ago
I was absolutely in favor of opposing funeral protests when they were happening in America[1]. Freedom to protest doesn't mean the freedom to abuse people when they're in an emotionally fragile state. I think it's perfectly fair to have a discussion about the validity of the monarchy moving forward - and I think it's also perfectly fair to let those folks who had some emotional connection (whether reciprocated or single-directional) attend a funeral to remember the queen in peace. 1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-04-20-0604200211-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-04-20-060420... - the government didn't directly step in in this case but the protestors were effectively silenced by way to crowds of decent folks with loud motorcycles.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ben_w 4y ago
In a democracy? Sure, arrests can still occur, but one needs to be a lot more careful than the argument OP used. However, the UK is a kingdom in various important ways, and this was the funeral of the head of state and the head of the official state religion.
karaterobot 4y ago
> The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.

dijit 4y ago

You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners regardless of who the dead person is. People were arrested at Margaret Thatchers funeral for the same thing. It’s not rocket science. You’re not allowed to do that.

ISL 4y ago
In the United States, with certain limits [1], one can picket funerals and be massively disrespectful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_limiting_funeral_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_l...
- bawolff 4y ago
  So? the US is a weird, barely functioning, democracy. Why would anyone want to emulate it?
  - junofan 4y ago
    Not arresting protestors is probably a good thing to emulate regardless of your feelings about the US.
    - gambiting 4y ago
      Why does everything have to be so extremist with the US? Everything taken to the absolute maximum imaginable? Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.
      - mwint 4y ago
        USAian here: > Protests should be allowed They are. > destroying public property Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. > advocating violence or hate Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime. Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        > > advocating violence or hate > Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat. Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech. You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
        Vecr 4y ago
        This is correct, I'm not sure why it's being down-voted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        Eh, it's an ugly truth and my examples could have been less extreme. Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1]. For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion: > a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.” [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
    - bawolff 4y ago
      as another example, US lets you bring guns to protests, i am 100% on board with how my government (canada) arrests any idiots who show up with a firearm to a protest. I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want 100% free for all.
      - HideousKojima 4y ago
        When you have counterprotestors/rioters throwing bricks/molotovs/etc. with the tacit consent of the local government, going to a protest armed can be the only way to safely exercise your constitutional right to protest.
        bawolff 4y ago
        What is with americans and might makes right? What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
        gjs278 4y ago
        HideousKojima 4y ago
        >What is with americans and might makes right? The fact that all state power eventually comes down to men with guns. >What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. You either get out of there or you shoot back, that's really not a hard question. And to your second question yes, especially if the other side is shooting or threatening to shoot. Safer if you have guns as well than only they have guns. And just look at Kyle Rittenhouse, he would have been dead if he hadn't been armed. The third person he shot straight up said that he would have shot Kyle if Kyle hadn't vaporized his bicep first. >For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face? Once again it makes you safer, because they can't risk throwing molotovs at you from out in the open. Your being armed helps you control when and from where they could possibly attack you with molotovs or whatever.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    This is exactly why I refuse to walk. I'm told that Hitler once walked.
  - deskamess 4y ago
    What makes it weird? Why is it barely functioning?
    - wutbrodo 4y ago
      I think you're just seeing an example of the raging inferiority complex that many members of the rest of the West exhibit towards the US. There's a noticeable cultural difference along certain axes, with both significant downsides and significant upsides for both sides of the cultural divide. But there are many out there who aren't cognitively capable of processing the breathtaking nuance of global cultural differences, and unsurprisingly they end up with a reductive view of the culture they don't understand (same as it ever was). My personal experience of backpacking around the world was replete with lectures from 25-year-old European women about the US's issues. They were of such poor quality that I mostly just smiled and shrugged it off, knowing that it'd be a waste of my vacation to try and explain to them the nuances of cultural difference. But I had the delightful catharsis of schooling a particularly-obnoxious British girl on her country's role as the primary contender for history's greatest supervillain (unsurprisingly, her grasp of history and politics was.... poor).
      - ziftface 4y ago
        Okay but our democracy is actually barely functional. It's not relevant to the above conversation but it is a true statement.
    - tstrimple 4y ago
      See the dozens of voting restrictions which were passed in various states over the last two years. See the 200 year old compromise with slave holder states which is still in effect to this day. See the consistent disenfranchisement efforts over the last decade led by a particular major political party. See any and all voter rights laws being stymied by that same party. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2022 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Well to start, right now there is 24/7 news coverage about how an ex-president took state documents with him on his way out. Seperation of office from officeholder is a pretty key part of a functioning democracy (hell even the british monarchy can do that one). Or how about how everyone knows the political affiliations of supreme court judges? In a normal country judges are apolitical.
- azalemeth 4y ago
  This is a very clear distinction in the UK. There are a number of constraints on someone's rights to make loud noises in the UK, of which probably Section 5(1) of the 1986 Public Order Act is most often used -- it states "(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)" with all of the usual lawyerly finness about what (b) means being defined by common law precedent and the right to freedom of expression largely being worked out by the courts together with reference to the ECHR. Note that things like animal rights protestors making loud noises at university graduations (where the graduates have nothing to do with animal experiments) have successfully been challenged under this statute – the usual remedy is a high court injunction relocating them to somewhere visible and nearby, but out of earshot, of the thing they are protesting against. It is worth noting that a long-running tradition in the UK is that if a policeman disagrees with a piece of legislation and the opportunity arises to challenge it favourably in court, he arrests somebody under the legislation in question in what may be favourable but reasonable circumstances (favourable to the defendant) in order to circumscribe the limitations of the act in question. As a consequence, in many ways, I therefore think that this may also be a challenge by police officers to the validity of the conservative government's latest legislation that aims to ban "disruptive" protests, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was largely modified to deal with the (IMO effective) protests of the Insulate Britain campaign who recently brought major motorways to a crawl. It is a deeply divisive and very authoritarian bill, and would cover this situation. Specifically, it provides that: "[...] police forces are allowed to place restrictions on protests they believe would otherwise constitute an existing offence of public nuisance, including imposing starting and finishing times and noise limits, and be able to consider actions by one individual as protests under provisions of the Act. Protestors disobeying such instructions from the police may be committing a criminal offence." In my opinion, this has already been used to stifle what I find to be legitimate protest – "on 28 June 2022, the day the act came into force, anti-Brexit activist Steve Bray had his amplification equipment seized by police under the 2011 Police Reform Social Responsibility Act. The 2022 act extends the area around the House of Commons in which protest is restricted under the 2011 act." [1]. As recognised by the police, positing the possibility of transitioning to a republic (from a constitutional monarchy) is almost certainly a clear-cut case of a legitimate piece of protest, and so if someone _did_ protest accordingly _without_ being rude and disruptive I think this would be a perfect opportunity for the courts to throw out the charge. Edit: Further bits of fun law – "public nuisance" is both a tort and a very old legal concept, recommended effectively for removal and updating from the criminal statutes by the Law Commission in 2015 [2]. It is described quite formally in many words (c.f. [2]) but more usefully defined by the fact that it typically consists either of an environmental nuisance, such as carrying on works producing excessive noise or smells, or of offensive or dangerous behaviour in public, such as noisy parties and hanging from bridges. It also includes obstructing the public highway, though now this is also a statutory offence. Public nuisance therefore is a much lower bar to offence than either the public order act or breach of the peace would be; and unlike those acts there is no requirement for a mens rea: there is no requirement that the defendant intended or was reckless about whether his conduct caused the relevant kind of harm. This is quite a key point as it de facto lets the police decide what the line is, with no input required on the part of the defendant. I would be very interested to see a reconciliation of these rights with that of freedom to expression and the broader constitutional right to protest in the UK. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentencing_and_Courts_Act_2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentencing_and_... [2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/438194/50076_Law_Commission_HC_213_bookmark.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- LilBytes 4y ago
  I was about to quote the same church. Personally I think the UK law got it right on this one.
- metacritic12 4y ago
  That section you linked shows that free-speech is indeed limited within a certain radius of certain funerals.
  - junofan 4y ago
    I suggest you read the whole section.
    - metacritic12 4y ago
      Are you referring to Synder v Phelps where the Supreme Court held that a distant (1000 ft away) protest didn't qualify for monetary (tort) damages for the deceased's family? Because that case doesn't strike down the state laws preventing protests in close proximity. It just ruled that the private citizen can't get lots of money for emotional distress caused by a protest.
      - bourgeoismedia 4y ago
        It barred IIED claims specifically because they were targeted at activities protected by the 1st amendment.
- mc32 4y ago
  But this is a case in the UK. They have different laws and observe different decorum. Even in the US I would think protesting a funeral to be in extremely poor taste, no matter the target. What’s that Latin phrase about the recently dead?
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    Yeah but the UK is where you can get arrested for making your girlfriend's pug do a Nazi salute as a joke (but somehow Father Ted doing similar Nazi jokes gets a pass)
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      >making your girlfriend's pug do a Nazi salute Wait, what? Pretty sure dogs don't have the anatomical capability to do a nazi salute. At best they can just lift a leg up, but is that really a nazi salute?
      - HideousKojima 4y ago
        For your enlightenment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - gerdesj 4y ago
      Citation needed but I suspect you are probably right about the pug. Father Ted is Irish as in Republic of Ireland as in not UKoGB - we share a very, very strange border. Having said that, Father Ted was turned down by RTE for being too Irish and was eventually financed by the BBC! Thankfully it eventually aired because it is absolutely belting.
      - aembleton 4y ago
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
- koheripbal 4y ago
  Regardless of the legalities, it's not a behaviour anyone should be proud of. If shitting in the street were legal would you complain when people passed a law to stop your bad behaviour?
- thomassmith65 4y ago
  That's hardly something to be proud of. God, I hate ideology.
- some_random 4y ago
  Unlike the US, there is no right to free speech in the UK
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
KptMarchewa 4y ago
Once again, Americans are proud of the fact they can protest at funerals.
- defen 4y ago
  The alternative is that you can be arrested for saying something mean at a funeral. I prefer the American system.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    I don't - my father's funeral is literally two weeks away. Some relatives that my mother doesn't get along with at all aren't invited - they've never been particularly close and it'll be healthier for everyone if they don't stir shit in a time of healing. This isn't a case of protestors being repeatedly ignored - the public discussion about the monarchy is unfolding in most media outlets right now and other forms of protest are still quite available.
    - defen 4y ago
      Sorry about your father. I don't like using personal examples since emotions can be strong, especially at a time like this. If they were to show up and stand peacefully with a sign, I don't think that should be illegal. But if they did that it would certainly show the rest of the family what kinds of people they are.
      - munk-a 4y ago
        I mean - whenever we're talking about funerals it's an extremely personal event for some. Just because you can't see the person - or it's a person of privilege - doesn't mean it doesn't hit just as hard. Additionally, while I think this is extremely unhealthy mentally, there was a not insignificant proportion of Britain that felt they had a personal relationship with the queen even if they never met her for tea.
    - gjs278 4y ago
throwawaymanbot 4y ago
mytailorisrich 4y ago
In Oxford someone was arrested for shouting "who elected him" during the proclamation of the new king so it's not just about respecting a funeral (which is understable) or unacceptable language. But in fairness to the police there seems to be a mass fervour at the moment and they may actually be doing the hecklers a service by taking them away for their own safety...
- account-5 4y ago
  And then de-arrested.
  - jjgreen 4y ago
    That arrest can still see you barred from certain jobs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29784497 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29784497
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Why do you arrest someone just to de-arrest them minutes later once there are away? I think this rather proves the point that the police knew that person was not actually committing an offence but wanted to take them away.
- krona 4y ago
  This is the point. 'Fear or provocation of violence' is an offence since it precipitates violence, its a provocation that 'might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control', which would be quite dreadful!
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    How does a reasonable, sober person lose self-control over some random dude shouting at a celebrity?
  - 4y ago
bogomipz 4y ago
>"You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners regardless of who the dead person is." The word hurling in the context of insults or obscenities means vocalizing them in a very audible fashion. The article states that the woman at St Giles was not audibly protesting but rather holding a sign. Given that she was quietly expressing her opinion, tasteful or not, it seems she could have been quietly removed without being arrested. >"In widely seen photos, a woman holding a sign reading "Abolish monarchy" and "F*** imperialism" was arrested on Sunday at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh, where the queen's body is to lie at rest until Tuesday. Further the object of their protest was the institution and neither the mourners or the deceased. The other two people mentioned in the article who were vocal, were outside on public streets and not in a Church. The article states they were near parade barricades. Again the object of their protest was the institution and it was being done on public streets. Surely you are allowed to express your discontent about an institution on a public street. That's not rocket science. >"And in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall." Again we have a woman who was holding up a sign on a public street "near Westminster Hall."
dTal 4y ago
You will also be arrested for shouting "who elected him" at the new King's proclamation ceremony apparently. These tired strawmen need to stop. Anti-royalists are being arrested for expressing anti-royal views in inconvenient places, not "hurling obscenities at a funeral".

zardo 4y ago

A democracy certainly doesn't need rules to protect the dignity of it's royal family.

ysleepy 4y ago
Not a royal privilege though, the commoners enjoy the right to an undisturbed funeral too.
- misnome 4y ago
  Ah, so the entire country counts as the site of a funeral now?
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    It does if it's for a royal, I guess.
  - type0 4y ago
    Yeah and why not entire Commonwealth then?

googlryas 4y ago

It's not being arrested for poor taste. They're being arrested for their actions, not their beliefs. Is there some democracy somewhere which doesn't have a public nuisance/breaching the peace style law?

mytailorisrich 4y ago
Let's just say that the hecklers have been arrested much, much faster (pretty much instantly, apparently) than the "eco-activists" who recently blocked roads, petrol stations, even motorways...
- koheripbal 4y ago
  I think we agree that all disruptive assholes should be arrested quickly.
  - teamonkey 4y ago
    Definitely, absolutely not.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
type0 4y ago
UK isn't a democracy it's a monarchy
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  It purports to be both a non-republican democracy and a monarchy.
  - cma 4y ago
    The king/queen can dissolve parliament: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Uni... It is only by convention that he doesn't, that will only last until you get a bad king/queen and thr right opportunity.

metacritic12 4y ago

Is stealing someone else's wallet also in poor taste? Yes. If that thief gets arrested, is it just because it is poor taste? No. Same thing with hurling obscenities at a funeral.

dqh 4y ago

Do you really think you should have the right to disrupt the funeral of someone you don’t like?

pharmakom 4y ago
What if the funeral is a 10 day extravaganza at tax payer expense whilst some families are choosing between eating and heating?
- gambiting 4y ago
  I think we're reaching some insane point in this discussion when a funeral of one of the most well known people in the world, where leaders of literally every major superpower are coming over to pay their respects is called an extravaganza.
  - dTal 4y ago
  - aembleton 4y ago
    > where leaders of literally every major superpower are coming over to pay their respects Is Putin coming?
    - autoexec 4y ago
      Considering they've failed to take Ukraine I'm not Russia gets to keep it's "Superpower" status anymore. Even if they eventually managed it in the following weeks/months/years, that's still just pathetic. I'm not saying I wanted Russia to invade or beat Ukraine, I think the war was beyond stupid and unnecessary but it sure has made Russia look weak and dumb. Not the kind of thing that "projects power on a global scale."
- rlpb 4y ago
  Since about half the country seem to want to show up, it seems reasonable and proportionate. I wouldn't have a problem with some celebrity's funeral being a huge affair either, even if I didn't care for that celebrity myself. In case I'm misunderstood, I don't feel strongly either way about the British royalty, but I'm OK with allowing a significant proportion of the population being left alone to get on with what ceremony they want to do, given that they want to do it.

babypuncher 4y ago

I think it's fair to make certain events, like funerals, off-limits to protest. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
> Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service. For trespassing. This example has nothing to do with speech.
- bawolff 4y ago
  It has the same amount as the thing this article is about, which makes it a good comparison (the article also has nothing to do with the content of the speech)
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    The article definitely has to do with the content of the speech: > Similar reports emerged Monday, including one case involving a man who was seen being forcibly removed from a parade barrier after shouting at the royal procession leading to the cathedral. He was reportedly heckling Prince Andrew. This comparison just has nothing to do with speech at all. It’s categorically different. You’d get arrested for breaking into the Oval Office even if you remained silent the whole time.
tastyfreeze 4y ago
You can hurl all the obscenities you like at the President. You might be removed from the property but you won't be shot.
- babypuncher 4y ago

throwawaylinux 4y ago

They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that.

lupire 4y ago
Fragile, civilized. Potato, potato.
alasdair_ 4y ago
> They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that. And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.
- gambiting 4y ago
  That's like complaining that you will get arrested for having sex in the middle of the street, but sex in a film is somehow fine(surely it's because movie producers have money and are in cahoots with the government, and not for any other, more logical reason, like the fact that art forms, no matter how poor in taste, are protected by society).
  - wutbrodo 4y ago
    In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" argument than the movie production? Did the latter get a permit for Nazi jokes? (Sincere question, maybe they did: UK speech norms and laws are incredibly alien to me)
    - type0 4y ago
      > In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" The rules are different for regular plebs, that's as simple as that. And the lesson is that everyone should know their place.

koheripbal 4y ago

Screeching profanities at a funeral march should be a minor crime. ...but perhaps more importantly, you should just be ashamed of your childish behaviour.

bogomipz 4y ago
And yet nowhere in the article was it mentioned that someone was "screeching profanities." There were people who were holding signs and there were people that expressed their opinions without profanity during the ascension ceremonies. In fact the only screeching of any referenced in the article was Twitter post with a video where people are screeching "God Save the King."
ziftface 4y ago
Even if you think that should be a crime, why should that apply to the funeral of a representative or government official? People should be able to show their distaste of such a public figure however they want, even if it makes you feel weird about it.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Someone was arrested for yelling "Who elected him?". Is that considered a profanity now?

munk-a 4y ago

I was absolutely in favor of opposing funeral protests when they were happening in America[1]. Freedom to protest doesn't mean the freedom to abuse people when they're in an emotionally fragile state. I think it's perfectly fair to have a discussion about the validity of the monarchy moving forward - and I think it's also perfectly fair to let those folks who had some emotional connection (whether reciprocated or single-directional) attend a funeral to remember the queen in peace. 1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-04-20-0604200211-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-04-20-060420... - the government didn't directly step in in this case but the protestors were effectively silenced by way to crowds of decent folks with loud motorcycles.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ben_w 4y ago

In a democracy? Sure, arrests can still occur, but one needs to be a lot more careful than the argument OP used. However, the UK is a kingdom in various important ways, and this was the funeral of the head of state and the head of the official state religion.

karaterobot 4y ago

> The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.