5 ms·

UK citizens don't have a constitutional right to free speech, which tends to bleed over in unhealthy ways to the government prioritizing its own interests over

by ethbr1 1y ago

UK citizens don't have a constitutional right to free speech, which tends to bleed over in unhealthy ways to the government prioritizing its own interests over citizens'.

weavejester 1y ago
> UK citizens don't have a constitutional right to free speech They do. The UK has an uncodified constitution, and this includes the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of expression to UK citizens.
- Synaesthesia 1y ago
  In practice there isn't freedom of speech. The UK government violates that all the time. Their agencies operate in secrecy and they have raided newspapers offices and destroyed data, arrested journalists and taken people's private information at borders.
  - netdevphoenix 1y ago
    Doesn't this apply to literally every government on earth?
    - tpm 1y ago
      No. > they have raided newspapers offices and destroyed data, arrested journalists and taken people's private information at borders This does not happen in many countries.
      - weavejester 1y ago
        Which countries would you hold up as exemplars of free speech?
        tpm 1y ago
        I would not hold up any country because there are flaws everywhere; and I don't like writing about free speech because it has different meanings for everyone. But even in our puny Slovakia raiding newspaper offices and taking peoples private data at the border is not something that would happen and didn't happen for at least the last 25 years or so, even though we had and currently have horribly bad governments. The situation in the UK is particularly bad I think because the legal situation is a hodgepodge of a missing written constitution, interweaving of the government branches (as I understand, the government can sometimes ignore the courts or is above them), the libel laws, and while still (for now) a member of the ECHR which gives some guarantees, it's rulings are always (many years) after the fact. Crucially, the UK is a very class-based society. The ruling class gets what it wants and it does not want free speech.
        weavejester 1y ago
        There's some truth in what you say, but it's filtered through a distorted lens. Like many countries, the UK government makes the laws and the courts interpret them. The government can't ignore the courts, but can introduce new legislation. The UK population leans more conservative than many other European countries, but free speech, for the most part, has broad public support. There's a lot of discussion around where the line should be drawn, however, and the government tends toward a more restrictive interpretation, while the opposition tends to oppose censorship. There is a strong element of class in the UK, but this is often misinterpreted. Class in the UK is not particularly fluid. You can have power and wealth, and still not be considered upper class. In the current government, only a minority of MPs are upper class, and of the current cabinet, only one attended a private school (a typical indicator of being upper-class). The raiding of the Guardian over the Snowden leaks was justified as recovering stolen national security information, and was widely (and rightly) criticised by the press at the time. It's not a common occurrence. Now, I don't mean to justify the UK government's behaviour. The government bows to the whims of GHCQ far more than it should do, particularly on any technological issue, where it seems GHCQ is the only one ever consulted. Obviously putting backdoors in messaging software, or raiding newpapers, is both incredible stupid and has ultimately lead to the UK government backing down. But that, I think, is the important part - that it backed down. The UK has a lot of flaws, and certainly isn't at the top of the press freedom list, but it's also consistently in the upper quartile (and notably above Slovakia, if you want a reference point). Looking from the outside, you see the exceptions and controversies - the parts where the system fails - which makes it easy to get a distorted picture of the situation.
- RumourRider 1y ago
  We do not. There are so many caveats in relevant part of the human rights act. > The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... While the US has restrictions on speech, there are far far fewer restrictions. The "uncodified constitution" that we have doesn't guarantee you "Freedom of Speech" either. I've read the relevant parts of the constitution in the UK. It gives Parliamentarians the right to unlimited speech. Finally "Freedom of Expression" and "Freedom of Speech" are not the same thing.
  - weavejester 1y ago
    Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no freedom of speech, in the same way we can agree the Moon is clearly outside our atmosphere. But in the margins it comes down to where you draw the line. There's also a difference when it comes to theory and practice. In theory the US is more permissive; it lacks the ECHR's caveats that permit restricting speech to protect health, morals and territorial integrity. But in practice the US is rated as coming below the UK in the World Press Freedom Index and the Freedom of Expression Index. The US government has a lot of power to lean on organisations and individuals to stifle speech, which of course it's currently doing.
    - RumourRider 1y ago
      No freedom of expression is a nebulous term that was invented obfuscate the very discussion we are having. It consider it to be nothing more than weasel words. Pointing at extreme examples like North Korea and pretending their isn't an issue because we are better them is classic whataboutism. I also don't care about what some random index that people pull out of their backsides. I care about the legality. Freedom of Speech in the US is enshrined in the constitution. It is not enshrined anywhere in UK law. As for the section you quoted, that is made effectively moot by the exceptions that I originally quoted. Generally I am pretty tired of people engaging in apologia for the British state.
pabs3 1y ago
How does free speech guarantee privacy?
- prasadjoglekar 1y ago
  Encryption itself is a form of speech. Therefore the govt can't force you to decrypt. Guarantee is too strong of a word, but this is the concept.
  - Veen 1y ago
    That’s a specifically US interpretation based on US case law. It doesn’t apply in the UK or anywhere else.
    - ahoka 1y ago
      US also interprets political bribes as free speech, which is nonsense.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        I’d phrase it as the US recognizing that all political support (including money) is speech. It’s difficult to decide what type of political speech is and isn’t okay, without censoring. (Said as someone in favor of public funding only for campaigns, but who acknowledges external funding would be a nightmare to police)
  - RumourRider 1y ago
    You are supposed to have a 4th & 5th Amendment rights in the US. However a Judge can order you to decrypt a drive given probable cause IIRC. There have been cases where Judges have jailed people for disobeying an order to decrypt a drive.
derelicta 1y ago
None of the west has a right to free speech. Even in the US, protesting against a genocide means you risk ending up in an internment camp.
HeckFeck 1y ago
There is freedom of speech if you are a MP speaking in Parliament (Parliamentary privilege) but outside of there, things have been on a steady decline since the 1980s.

by ethbr1 1y ago

UK citizens don't have a constitutional right to free speech, which tends to bleed over in unhealthy ways to the government prioritizing its own interests over citizens'.

weavejester 1y ago

> UK citizens don't have a constitutional right to free speech They do. The UK has an uncodified constitution, and this includes the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of expression to UK citizens.

Synaesthesia 1y ago
In practice there isn't freedom of speech. The UK government violates that all the time. Their agencies operate in secrecy and they have raided newspapers offices and destroyed data, arrested journalists and taken people's private information at borders.
- netdevphoenix 1y ago
  Doesn't this apply to literally every government on earth?
  - tpm 1y ago
    No. > they have raided newspapers offices and destroyed data, arrested journalists and taken people's private information at borders This does not happen in many countries.
    - weavejester 1y ago
      Which countries would you hold up as exemplars of free speech?
      - tpm 1y ago
        I would not hold up any country because there are flaws everywhere; and I don't like writing about free speech because it has different meanings for everyone. But even in our puny Slovakia raiding newspaper offices and taking peoples private data at the border is not something that would happen and didn't happen for at least the last 25 years or so, even though we had and currently have horribly bad governments. The situation in the UK is particularly bad I think because the legal situation is a hodgepodge of a missing written constitution, interweaving of the government branches (as I understand, the government can sometimes ignore the courts or is above them), the libel laws, and while still (for now) a member of the ECHR which gives some guarantees, it's rulings are always (many years) after the fact. Crucially, the UK is a very class-based society. The ruling class gets what it wants and it does not want free speech.
        weavejester 1y ago
        There's some truth in what you say, but it's filtered through a distorted lens. Like many countries, the UK government makes the laws and the courts interpret them. The government can't ignore the courts, but can introduce new legislation. The UK population leans more conservative than many other European countries, but free speech, for the most part, has broad public support. There's a lot of discussion around where the line should be drawn, however, and the government tends toward a more restrictive interpretation, while the opposition tends to oppose censorship. There is a strong element of class in the UK, but this is often misinterpreted. Class in the UK is not particularly fluid. You can have power and wealth, and still not be considered upper class. In the current government, only a minority of MPs are upper class, and of the current cabinet, only one attended a private school (a typical indicator of being upper-class). The raiding of the Guardian over the Snowden leaks was justified as recovering stolen national security information, and was widely (and rightly) criticised by the press at the time. It's not a common occurrence. Now, I don't mean to justify the UK government's behaviour. The government bows to the whims of GHCQ far more than it should do, particularly on any technological issue, where it seems GHCQ is the only one ever consulted. Obviously putting backdoors in messaging software, or raiding newpapers, is both incredible stupid and has ultimately lead to the UK government backing down. But that, I think, is the important part - that it backed down. The UK has a lot of flaws, and certainly isn't at the top of the press freedom list, but it's also consistently in the upper quartile (and notably above Slovakia, if you want a reference point). Looking from the outside, you see the exceptions and controversies - the parts where the system fails - which makes it easy to get a distorted picture of the situation.
RumourRider 1y ago
We do not. There are so many caveats in relevant part of the human rights act. > The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... While the US has restrictions on speech, there are far far fewer restrictions. The "uncodified constitution" that we have doesn't guarantee you "Freedom of Speech" either. I've read the relevant parts of the constitution in the UK. It gives Parliamentarians the right to unlimited speech. Finally "Freedom of Expression" and "Freedom of Speech" are not the same thing.
- weavejester 1y ago
  Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no freedom of speech, in the same way we can agree the Moon is clearly outside our atmosphere. But in the margins it comes down to where you draw the line. There's also a difference when it comes to theory and practice. In theory the US is more permissive; it lacks the ECHR's caveats that permit restricting speech to protect health, morals and territorial integrity. But in practice the US is rated as coming below the UK in the World Press Freedom Index and the Freedom of Expression Index. The US government has a lot of power to lean on organisations and individuals to stifle speech, which of course it's currently doing.
  - RumourRider 1y ago
    No freedom of expression is a nebulous term that was invented obfuscate the very discussion we are having. It consider it to be nothing more than weasel words. Pointing at extreme examples like North Korea and pretending their isn't an issue because we are better them is classic whataboutism. I also don't care about what some random index that people pull out of their backsides. I care about the legality. Freedom of Speech in the US is enshrined in the constitution. It is not enshrined anywhere in UK law. As for the section you quoted, that is made effectively moot by the exceptions that I originally quoted. Generally I am pretty tired of people engaging in apologia for the British state.

pabs3 1y ago

How does free speech guarantee privacy?

prasadjoglekar 1y ago
Encryption itself is a form of speech. Therefore the govt can't force you to decrypt. Guarantee is too strong of a word, but this is the concept.
- Veen 1y ago
  That’s a specifically US interpretation based on US case law. It doesn’t apply in the UK or anywhere else.
  - ahoka 1y ago
    US also interprets political bribes as free speech, which is nonsense.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      I’d phrase it as the US recognizing that all political support (including money) is speech. It’s difficult to decide what type of political speech is and isn’t okay, without censoring. (Said as someone in favor of public funding only for campaigns, but who acknowledges external funding would be a nightmare to police)
- RumourRider 1y ago
  You are supposed to have a 4th & 5th Amendment rights in the US. However a Judge can order you to decrypt a drive given probable cause IIRC. There have been cases where Judges have jailed people for disobeying an order to decrypt a drive.

derelicta 1y ago

None of the west has a right to free speech. Even in the US, protesting against a genocide means you risk ending up in an internment camp.

HeckFeck 1y ago

There is freedom of speech if you are a MP speaking in Parliament (Parliamentary privilege) but outside of there, things have been on a steady decline since the 1980s.