3 ms·

As an American, I know that right now my words ring hollow - but the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarm

by SR2Z 9mo ago

As an American, I know that right now my words ring hollow - but the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting. We should all be tolerant societies, and the problem with tolerance is that you never have to tolerate speech you like. "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. The right of citizens to privacy is enshrined in the constitution of virtually every democracy. Sure there are some allowances that have to be made for common law vs civil law regimes, but if the right to privacy is routinely being violated that is a problem.

pif 9mo ago
> "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear. Today's technology enables actual privacy any anonimity online, and any good and bad deeds can be hidden behind the screen, and nobody should be offended, nor surprised, that civilised societies may want to have a say in the matter.
- CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
  >Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear. Good point, if regrettable. Even unlicensed encryption/ciphers have been made illegal by governments as wide ranging as Italy (15th c), France (16th c), Britain (18th c) and the US (WWI)
- themgt 9mo ago
  Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations This is more like a judge ordering phone book providers not to list a phone number for a public organization known to engage in criminal activity. It would be prima facie unconstitutional in America, while the police opening a suspect's envelope can be an authorized legal search.
GJim 9mo ago
> the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting. We do have free speech in Blighty thank you very much. Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police). If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.
- Sleaker 9mo ago
  > Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police). Not quite sure what you're referring to here, you can speak out all you want on political matters in the US. -Especially- in the context of criticizing the president.
  - jdcasale 9mo ago
    For what it's worth, I have lived in, and currently spend a lot of time in, both places. You're both very obviously wrong. There is a serious problem in the US. There is also a serious (though different) problem in the UK. The problem in the US is the chilling effect of the vindictiveness and lawlessness of the current regime. I will not elaborate on this because it's too complicated to communicate effectively in a forum post. The problem in the UK is a set of vaguely and arbitrarily specified-and-enforced laws that enable the criminalization of 'grossly offensive" speech. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication -- all enforcement is arbitrary and thus can be abused. Whether is it actually abused in any widespread fashion is irrelevant. - Communications Act 2003 (Section 127): Makes it an offense to send messages via public electronic networks (internet, phone, social media) that are "grossly offensive," indecent, obscene, or menacing, or to cause annoyance/anxiety. - Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1): Applies to sending letters or electronic communications with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety, containing indecent or grossly offensive content.
    - 9mo ago

by SR2Z 9mo ago

pif 9mo ago

> "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear. Today's technology enables actual privacy any anonimity online, and any good and bad deeds can be hidden behind the screen, and nobody should be offended, nor surprised, that civilised societies may want to have a say in the matter.

CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
>Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear. Good point, if regrettable. Even unlicensed encryption/ciphers have been made illegal by governments as wide ranging as Italy (15th c), France (16th c), Britain (18th c) and the US (WWI)
themgt 9mo ago
Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations This is more like a judge ordering phone book providers not to list a phone number for a public organization known to engage in criminal activity. It would be prima facie unconstitutional in America, while the police opening a suspect's envelope can be an authorized legal search.

GJim 9mo ago

> the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting. We do have free speech in Blighty thank you very much. Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police). If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.

Sleaker 9mo ago
> Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police). Not quite sure what you're referring to here, you can speak out all you want on political matters in the US. -Especially- in the context of criticizing the president.
- jdcasale 9mo ago
  For what it's worth, I have lived in, and currently spend a lot of time in, both places. You're both very obviously wrong. There is a serious problem in the US. There is also a serious (though different) problem in the UK. The problem in the US is the chilling effect of the vindictiveness and lawlessness of the current regime. I will not elaborate on this because it's too complicated to communicate effectively in a forum post. The problem in the UK is a set of vaguely and arbitrarily specified-and-enforced laws that enable the criminalization of 'grossly offensive" speech. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication -- all enforcement is arbitrary and thus can be abused. Whether is it actually abused in any widespread fashion is irrelevant. - Communications Act 2003 (Section 127): Makes it an offense to send messages via public electronic networks (internet, phone, social media) that are "grossly offensive," indecent, obscene, or menacing, or to cause annoyance/anxiety. - Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1): Applies to sending letters or electronic communications with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety, containing indecent or grossly offensive content.
  - 9mo ago