10 ms·

In the United States, with certain limits [1], one can picket funerals and be massively disrespectful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Churc

by 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]

by ISL 4y ago

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]