3 ms·

Monarchy uses the press bans all the time to hide internal family drama. All the press bans related to UK government, for example, ban of satirical references t

Monarchy uses the press bans all the time to hide internal family drama. All the press bans related to UK government, for example, ban of satirical references to government, are done in the name of enabling constitutional monarchy. If not for the monarchy, why else would the people limit their own freedoms for the sake of the government?

eynsham 4y ago
It’s almost as if there are vested bureaucratic interests in Britain’s constitutional democracy as in any other state.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Difference being in some countries they are unable to hide or criminalize sharing information on their hypocrisy — unlike the UK, which is not for the people, by the people. Ignorance is bliss.
benj111 4y ago
>for example, ban of satirical references to government Examples?
- O__________O 4y ago
  Sure, here’s the relevant rule from the “House of Commons: Broadcasting Committee: The Rules of Coverage” on page 17 — “no extracts of Parliamentary proceedings may be used in any light entertainment programme or in a programme of political satire”; link to related document: - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbroad/786/786.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbr... This is a rule of coverage for Parliamentary footage that has existed since 1989. It is an infringement on both freedom of speech and press. With the globalisation of media through the internet and social media, it is now foolish to assume that the electorate will be 'protected' from seeing satirical footage of Parliament — yet the law still stands. List of other forms of censorship in UK: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom Which includes specific examples related to rule mentioned above; search for ”satir” on the page.
  - benj111 4y ago
    That isn't a ban on satirical references to the government though. I would guess it came about because like the courts, filming in parliament wasn't allowed until the 80s. When they did introduce it, they had rules like this because they weren't sure how it would be used. As to the question of whether it's needed now after 30 years, probably not, but then it's probably not high up anyone's agenda to get it repealed.

eynsham 4y ago

It’s almost as if there are vested bureaucratic interests in Britain’s constitutional democracy as in any other state.

O__________O 4y ago
Difference being in some countries they are unable to hide or criminalize sharing information on their hypocrisy — unlike the UK, which is not for the people, by the people. Ignorance is bliss.

benj111 4y ago

>for example, ban of satirical references to government Examples?

O__________O 4y ago
Sure, here’s the relevant rule from the “House of Commons: Broadcasting Committee: The Rules of Coverage” on page 17 — “no extracts of Parliamentary proceedings may be used in any light entertainment programme or in a programme of political satire”; link to related document: - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbroad/786/786.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbr... This is a rule of coverage for Parliamentary footage that has existed since 1989. It is an infringement on both freedom of speech and press. With the globalisation of media through the internet and social media, it is now foolish to assume that the electorate will be 'protected' from seeing satirical footage of Parliament — yet the law still stands. List of other forms of censorship in UK: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom Which includes specific examples related to rule mentioned above; search for ”satir” on the page.
- benj111 4y ago
  That isn't a ban on satirical references to the government though. I would guess it came about because like the courts, filming in parliament wasn't allowed until the 80s. When they did introduce it, they had rules like this because they weren't sure how it would be used. As to the question of whether it's needed now after 30 years, probably not, but then it's probably not high up anyone's agenda to get it repealed.