9 ms·

Thoughtcrime in Britain

61 points by Cbasedlifeform 14y ago

R_Edward 14y ago
Well, that's certainly disturbing. Arrested for burning a paper poppy. I always thought Great Britain was rather more progressive than us colonials.
- EliRivers 14y ago
  If I understand correctly, it's actually not the burning of a poppy that's the crime, but (in this case) the posting of it online with associated commentary. I don't know if that's better, worse, or more of the same.
- NickPollard 14y ago
  Unfortunately we don't have an equivalent of the First Amendment in the UK, so people aren't quite as used to Free Speech being thought of as an unalienable right. Whilst generally speech is fairly free, and we have a pretty diverse media, there have been numerous laws impeaching upon Free Speech, particularly recently, generally in terms of avoiding obscenity and protecting children. It's a worrying trend, and one I wish we could revert. I've been wondering a lot recently what the best way is that I can help campaign against this - it's my biggest bugbear with UK politics currently, far more than the economy or other social issues. Any suggestions?
  - maratd 14y ago
    The UK and most of the colonies have legal systems that are based on common law. Which means precedent is everything. If you really want to do something about this problem, break the law, get arrested, and defeat the law in court. Or make friends with somebody who did that and assist that in their legal fight, assuming they decide to fight. Of course, your probability of success is slim, but that's a quick way of getting rid of something profoundly stupid by a sole individual.
  - richy_rich 14y ago
    http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/
jeremysmyth 14y ago
Although this isn't the act under which the guy was arrested, it is another example of ...vague and thoughtcrimey law in the UK. http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/ Also, and probably importantly, there's a large public (and legal - see the various judicial outcomes) reaction against the stupidity of laws like this.
hughlomas 14y ago
Why hasn't Britain adopted some sort of free speech law in the spirit of the US's first amendment? They've had over two hundred years to do so. Can anyone provide insight into why?
- Nursie 14y ago
  There seem to be a large number of people (lets call them dumbasses) who are quite happy with the status quo, and rather like the idea that people can be put away for saying the wrong thing. This is (of course) because in their minds they are part of the in-crowd and people caught by these unjust laws are part of the out-crowd and are therefore 'other'. Many humans do not care about what happens to anyone that can be defined as 'other'. It never seems to occur to them that it could be used against themselves or their relatives. They also seem to trust government implicitly. Perhaps it's a generational thing. I hope this changes.
- lttlrck 14y ago
  It would not do what you think it would. "In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise." Source Wikipedia.
Nursie 14y ago
Grossly offensive apparently. I despair of this country, I really do. The whole system around speech laws is a mockery of justice. People with no connection to the country sue each other here because the material may have been available in the UK. People are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for little more than being insensitive buttholes. We desperately need a first amendment in our own law. Freedom of expression is supposedly guaranteed under EU law but these cases never seem to make it that far.
sambeau 14y ago
This article misses two important points: 1) Britain has never had free speech. 2) This was not a thought crime. It was a deliberate insult: an act of insensitivity and rudeness intended to give offence. You cannot walk onto a cinema and shout fire and you cannot legally call someone a cunt to their face in public (with the deliberate intention of causing offence) without attracting the attention of the law. While I'm sure there are many more pressing things that the UK's police force could (and should) be dealing with, calling this a thought crime is both naïve and stupid.
- Nursie 14y ago
  1) Freedom of speech is supposed to be guaranteed under the human rights act 1998 (article 10), though there are so many exceptions to that law that it's probably useless 2) This was a picture posted on facebook, by a moron, not a threat. There is no provocation here, no immediate danger, no incitement to violence. It's ludicrous that it could be considered a crime.
  - sambeau 14y ago
    1) The human rights act isn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it makes for an interesting read. I was surprised to see that it it explicitly allows for governments to shoot and kill rioters for instance. 2) I never said it was a threat. I said it wasn't a thought crime.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      1) Pretty sure I said it wasn't very clear cut... 2) You used examples of threatening, offensive danger on the street and a very specific behaviour that could cause death in a stampede (and is therefore a threat to life). What the idiot did was post a comment and picture to facebook - speech. Making certain types of speech illegal is pretty much my understanding of 'though crime'
      - sambeau 14y ago
        Thought crime is making thought illegal. This is about free speech versus 'hate speech'. Civilised society must protect thoughtful speech but cannot protect all speech. We are not (and should not be free) to: * Make up (and spread) lies with intent to mislead or harm * Defame people * Insult people for no other reason than to cause them pain * Wilfully cause panic * Incite others to harmful action for no good reason However you can think anything as long as you keep it to yourself. Free speech is the freedom to express ideas; not the freedom to insult other people for no reason. Linking it to the latter belittles the former. Setting fire to a poppy and calling squaddies cunts was a deliberate insulting act. The very fact that we have seen it and are debating it shows that it indeed caused offence. What was the great intellectual idea that we should be protecting? The freedom to call soldiers cunts for no reason? There was no humour here either. This was not a misunderstood joke. It was exactly the sort of behaviour that would cause a fight in a bar and as such would be illegal there too. Freedom to be nasty is not the same as freedom of expression. Your ideas need to be backed by facts and have a purpose other than deliberately causing anguish or inciting violence. Civilisation is built on civilised discourse and should seek wherever possible to move away from violent exchange. I, too, believe in protecting free speech and I am also very alarmed and embarrassed by many of the UK Facebook & Twitter court cases of late. The Robin Hood Airport case was a travesty and some of the plights of jokers during the riots of 2011 were certainly Orwelian, e.g.: 4 years for making a bad joke. We must protect free speech but protecting any nasty idiot like this does nothing for freedom nor freedom of ideas. It merely allows the nasty to spread their nastiness. (It is also my opinion that ideas freely expressed should not be free to seek to remove these rights of free expression from others.)
aes256 14y ago
There have been a number of troubling free speech cases in the UK over the last few months. In July, a 17-year-old was arrested during the Olympics for tweeting abusive messages at diver Tom Daley. In August, a 22-year-old man was arrested for posting racist tweets aimed at footballer Carlton Cole. Also in August, a 44-year-old man was arrested for posting a message on Facebook praising Anders Breivik. In September, a 22-year-old man was arrested for setting up a fan page on Facebook for Dale Cregan, shortly after Cregan was arrested by police, suspected of murdering two female police officers. In October a 19-year-old man was sentenced to three months in prison for posting jokes about the missing five-year-old April Jones. Also in October, a 20-year-old was given a community order for making an online post stating "all soldiers should die and go to hell"
- josephlord 14y ago
  I think that there is a difference between sending abusive messages to or at a particular person or group with the purpose of offending and from publishing them to your own contacts and subscribers. For me one could (at least if repeated) constitute criminal harassment and the other is free speech. Some of the example you give fall on different sides of the line for me. Racist messages may be a different matter. It is pretty clear that the UK does not have free speech in that area (including face to face - inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence) and I'm not sure that is a bad thing although I would like to imagine it is better to hear everything and beat racism with arguments that sounds like a naive view. So from your list: Tom Daley - probably an overreaction. Angry tweet mob response probably sufficient. Prolonged harassment of less popular people in more need of police intervention. Carlton Cole - Potentially criminal on or offline. I wouldn't argue against police involvement. Praising Brevik - shouldn't lead to arrest (unless racist itself) although might get you watched. Dale Cregan fan - shouldn't be criminal just nasty and dumb. April Jones - Ridiculous. Unless posted to the family or on a memorial site. Soldiers - I don't think this should be a matter for the police or law enforcement at all. [EDIT - The Poppy Case is I think completely ridiculous and he should have just been ignored and not given the attention especially as it sounded (on the radio news) like he had just posted to his friends on FB. If he sent it to fan page for the British Legion or a support page for those who had lost family in conflict it may be worth the police having a chat with him although as a one off I don't think it should be prosecuted even in that scenario.]
maeon3 14y ago
I'm not voicing my true opinion here because i'm worried i might get in trouble. I can't afford some lawsuits at this point in my life. maybe when i level up from my social class when my raise comes through... maybe.
- Nursie 14y ago
  If you level up enough they won't touch you anyway...
jiggy2011 14y ago
I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this. The overwhelming majority of the British public see these kinds of things as grossly offensive and in cases have created petitions wanting stuff like this to be illegal. This first blew up when the group "Islam4UK" demonstrated in Luton against the royal anglian regiment's homecoming parade. This spawned the EDL group to counter-protest. They later threatened to demonstrate in Wootton Basset (where dead soldiers are repatriated) and the uproar against this was huge with major newspapers all calling for the march to be banned. It is now illegal to be a member of the Islam4UK group, so they have had to change their name a bunch of times.
- jb17 14y ago
  Yeah, the British public is a bit sensitive when it comes to the army (and the queen). Islam4UK is a good example. They were an openly islamist group that wanted to overthrow the state to implement one based on Sharia law. No one really cared about that until they insulted 'our troops' (which eventually led to them being banned).
- fingerprinter 14y ago
  > I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this. This could come down to your view on the role of government, but I personally don't see that the majority opinion should be how a society is defined. There are dangers both ways, though I feel the government should always be pushing a more progressive social agenda. Gay marriage is a great current example. Obama is doing it right by pushing for it. Gillard in Australia is doing it wrong by saying "the people don't want it" and axing any proposals. Obama is fighting upstream for what is right and Gillard is basically saying "look, my hands are tied b/c the people don't want it". It's a cop-out for making an unpopular but right decision. In the case of free speech, there is little wiggle room, IMO. People need to be free to say what they want. It may not be popular, but that isn't the point. Long winded way of saying, the mass opinion shouldn't be the way we define civil societies. We need to do what is right. "Right" might be gray at times, but it is usually pretty clear when you get the smart people together and have them hash it out.
roco 14y ago
1984 was not a guidebook.
chernevik 14y ago
Americans aren't in much position to complain about free speech in Britain. The US government just imprisoned a man for his connection with a video deemed "offensive" by that government -- if there was any criticism by anyone but a few right-wing cranks I missed it. The man's nominal offense was a parole violation. Whether the government's pursuit of the violation, or the sentence given, were typical for such violations is beyond my expertise. However the government went out of its way to see to it that his arrest (pardon, "brought in for questioning") was known to and photographed by the press. This was an obvious effort to communicate to elements abroad the distate of the government for the video. Maybe he had to prosecuted on the parole violation -- if so, that could and should have been done much more quietly. No one seems to regard this particularly important, which I find very strange. One, anyone in the US who might want to say something "offensive" now has cause to wonder what opportunities they present to discretionary prosecution. Two, and more important, the US government has just validated censorious behaviors of a great many governments. How exactly are we going to complain to the Chinese or Egyptian government for jailing dissenters when we have made a point of doing just that? Worse, we've just told all those dissenters that they cannot be sure that we will be supporting them if they get into trouble. I don't really much care that his offense was nominally related to an international incident, or that he said means things about someone else's religion. The whole point of ignoring such problems is to deny the government _any_ excuse for censorship. Because once a government gets in the habit, it becomes quite easy to find excuses for the censorships it finds in its interests. This was a shameful episode for Americans. Joined to a cultural squishiness on speech "offensive" to one religion in particular, it is disturbing. Join it with a few more episodes of government action and the lot will begin to become dangerous.
- jdminhbg 14y ago
  > Americans aren't in much position to complain about free speech in Britain. The author appears to be British. So what does this have to do with anything?
  - chernevik 14y ago
    It has to do with any Americans who might be reading or commenting on this topic, on this board. I expect there are enough such to merit noting events in their own country. That is so obvious I have to wonder why you are looking for arguments against even mentioning the matter.
jackcviers3 14y ago
All speech, including that inciting violence or dissent should be protected. If a populace allows imprisonment over utterances, rebellion against tyranny becomes impossible. Imagine Thomas Paine was imprisoned for "Common Sense" or the First Continental Congress was imprisoned for discussing independence, or that Martin Luther King was imprisoned for expressing the extremely unpopular and offensive notion of equality for all races, or Pope was imprisoned for his satire of slavery or Joyce for his depictions of people going to the restroom. Socrates was willing to go to death because of his ideals. The least of us should be willing to decry the suppression of opinion of any form at the risk of being offended or verbally injured or even incited to violence against the forces that support the suppression of Speech, lest we find ourselves the member of an oppressed, unpopular, and thus imprisonable or executable minority. To fail to protect the Speech of those with whom we disagree is to fail to live as free people. This was the salient theme in Orwell's 1984. Newspeak was an attempt not to remove offensive Speech, but to make impossible the act of expressing any thought through speech that may move the populace to action to throw off the shackles of tyranny that chained them to a life of slavery. Britons have a right to be angry, and a right to express their anger at these arrests. They are an assault on the human rights of all citizens of the UK and the willingness of some on this topic to accept these assaults is both unsettling and unexpected.
Zenst 14y ago
He may of had a right to free speech, but there again so did those who's memories he was offending. It is also worth noting that free speech realy offers not extra right to utilise match's with regards to burning things to cause offence. Be him burning religious fiction or paper flowers, it is the way that free speech is expressed that is the crux of the issue and as a rule free speech does not advocate match's or fire. I feel that last point is important on many levels.

Well, that's certainly disturbing. Arrested for burning a paper poppy. I always thought Great Britain was rather more progressive than us colonials.

EliRivers 14y ago
If I understand correctly, it's actually not the burning of a poppy that's the crime, but (in this case) the posting of it online with associated commentary. I don't know if that's better, worse, or more of the same.
NickPollard 14y ago
Unfortunately we don't have an equivalent of the First Amendment in the UK, so people aren't quite as used to Free Speech being thought of as an unalienable right. Whilst generally speech is fairly free, and we have a pretty diverse media, there have been numerous laws impeaching upon Free Speech, particularly recently, generally in terms of avoiding obscenity and protecting children. It's a worrying trend, and one I wish we could revert. I've been wondering a lot recently what the best way is that I can help campaign against this - it's my biggest bugbear with UK politics currently, far more than the economy or other social issues. Any suggestions?
- maratd 14y ago
  The UK and most of the colonies have legal systems that are based on common law. Which means precedent is everything. If you really want to do something about this problem, break the law, get arrested, and defeat the law in court. Or make friends with somebody who did that and assist that in their legal fight, assuming they decide to fight. Of course, your probability of success is slim, but that's a quick way of getting rid of something profoundly stupid by a sole individual.
- richy_rich 14y ago
  http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/

jeremysmyth 14y ago

Although this isn't the act under which the guy was arrested, it is another example of ...vague and thoughtcrimey law in the UK. http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/ Also, and probably importantly, there's a large public (and legal - see the various judicial outcomes) reaction against the stupidity of laws like this.

hughlomas 14y ago

Why hasn't Britain adopted some sort of free speech law in the spirit of the US's first amendment? They've had over two hundred years to do so. Can anyone provide insight into why?

Nursie 14y ago
There seem to be a large number of people (lets call them dumbasses) who are quite happy with the status quo, and rather like the idea that people can be put away for saying the wrong thing. This is (of course) because in their minds they are part of the in-crowd and people caught by these unjust laws are part of the out-crowd and are therefore 'other'. Many humans do not care about what happens to anyone that can be defined as 'other'. It never seems to occur to them that it could be used against themselves or their relatives. They also seem to trust government implicitly. Perhaps it's a generational thing. I hope this changes.
lttlrck 14y ago
It would not do what you think it would. "In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise." Source Wikipedia.

Nursie 14y ago

Grossly offensive apparently. I despair of this country, I really do. The whole system around speech laws is a mockery of justice. People with no connection to the country sue each other here because the material may have been available in the UK. People are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for little more than being insensitive buttholes. We desperately need a first amendment in our own law. Freedom of expression is supposedly guaranteed under EU law but these cases never seem to make it that far.

sambeau 14y ago

This article misses two important points: 1) Britain has never had free speech. 2) This was not a thought crime. It was a deliberate insult: an act of insensitivity and rudeness intended to give offence. You cannot walk onto a cinema and shout fire and you cannot legally call someone a cunt to their face in public (with the deliberate intention of causing offence) without attracting the attention of the law. While I'm sure there are many more pressing things that the UK's police force could (and should) be dealing with, calling this a thought crime is both naïve and stupid.

Nursie 14y ago
1) Freedom of speech is supposed to be guaranteed under the human rights act 1998 (article 10), though there are so many exceptions to that law that it's probably useless 2) This was a picture posted on facebook, by a moron, not a threat. There is no provocation here, no immediate danger, no incitement to violence. It's ludicrous that it could be considered a crime.
- sambeau 14y ago
  1) The human rights act isn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it makes for an interesting read. I was surprised to see that it it explicitly allows for governments to shoot and kill rioters for instance. 2) I never said it was a threat. I said it wasn't a thought crime.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    1) Pretty sure I said it wasn't very clear cut... 2) You used examples of threatening, offensive danger on the street and a very specific behaviour that could cause death in a stampede (and is therefore a threat to life). What the idiot did was post a comment and picture to facebook - speech. Making certain types of speech illegal is pretty much my understanding of 'though crime'
    - sambeau 14y ago
      Thought crime is making thought illegal. This is about free speech versus 'hate speech'. Civilised society must protect thoughtful speech but cannot protect all speech. We are not (and should not be free) to: * Make up (and spread) lies with intent to mislead or harm * Defame people * Insult people for no other reason than to cause them pain * Wilfully cause panic * Incite others to harmful action for no good reason However you can think anything as long as you keep it to yourself. Free speech is the freedom to express ideas; not the freedom to insult other people for no reason. Linking it to the latter belittles the former. Setting fire to a poppy and calling squaddies cunts was a deliberate insulting act. The very fact that we have seen it and are debating it shows that it indeed caused offence. What was the great intellectual idea that we should be protecting? The freedom to call soldiers cunts for no reason? There was no humour here either. This was not a misunderstood joke. It was exactly the sort of behaviour that would cause a fight in a bar and as such would be illegal there too. Freedom to be nasty is not the same as freedom of expression. Your ideas need to be backed by facts and have a purpose other than deliberately causing anguish or inciting violence. Civilisation is built on civilised discourse and should seek wherever possible to move away from violent exchange. I, too, believe in protecting free speech and I am also very alarmed and embarrassed by many of the UK Facebook & Twitter court cases of late. The Robin Hood Airport case was a travesty and some of the plights of jokers during the riots of 2011 were certainly Orwelian, e.g.: 4 years for making a bad joke. We must protect free speech but protecting any nasty idiot like this does nothing for freedom nor freedom of ideas. It merely allows the nasty to spread their nastiness. (It is also my opinion that ideas freely expressed should not be free to seek to remove these rights of free expression from others.)

aes256 14y ago

There have been a number of troubling free speech cases in the UK over the last few months. In July, a 17-year-old was arrested during the Olympics for tweeting abusive messages at diver Tom Daley. In August, a 22-year-old man was arrested for posting racist tweets aimed at footballer Carlton Cole. Also in August, a 44-year-old man was arrested for posting a message on Facebook praising Anders Breivik. In September, a 22-year-old man was arrested for setting up a fan page on Facebook for Dale Cregan, shortly after Cregan was arrested by police, suspected of murdering two female police officers. In October a 19-year-old man was sentenced to three months in prison for posting jokes about the missing five-year-old April Jones. Also in October, a 20-year-old was given a community order for making an online post stating "all soldiers should die and go to hell"

josephlord 14y ago
I think that there is a difference between sending abusive messages to or at a particular person or group with the purpose of offending and from publishing them to your own contacts and subscribers. For me one could (at least if repeated) constitute criminal harassment and the other is free speech. Some of the example you give fall on different sides of the line for me. Racist messages may be a different matter. It is pretty clear that the UK does not have free speech in that area (including face to face - inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence) and I'm not sure that is a bad thing although I would like to imagine it is better to hear everything and beat racism with arguments that sounds like a naive view. So from your list: Tom Daley - probably an overreaction. Angry tweet mob response probably sufficient. Prolonged harassment of less popular people in more need of police intervention. Carlton Cole - Potentially criminal on or offline. I wouldn't argue against police involvement. Praising Brevik - shouldn't lead to arrest (unless racist itself) although might get you watched. Dale Cregan fan - shouldn't be criminal just nasty and dumb. April Jones - Ridiculous. Unless posted to the family or on a memorial site. Soldiers - I don't think this should be a matter for the police or law enforcement at all. [EDIT - The Poppy Case is I think completely ridiculous and he should have just been ignored and not given the attention especially as it sounded (on the radio news) like he had just posted to his friends on FB. If he sent it to fan page for the British Legion or a support page for those who had lost family in conflict it may be worth the police having a chat with him although as a one off I don't think it should be prosecuted even in that scenario.]

maeon3 14y ago

I'm not voicing my true opinion here because i'm worried i might get in trouble. I can't afford some lawsuits at this point in my life. maybe when i level up from my social class when my raise comes through... maybe.

Nursie 14y ago
If you level up enough they won't touch you anyway...

jiggy2011 14y ago

I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this. The overwhelming majority of the British public see these kinds of things as grossly offensive and in cases have created petitions wanting stuff like this to be illegal. This first blew up when the group "Islam4UK" demonstrated in Luton against the royal anglian regiment's homecoming parade. This spawned the EDL group to counter-protest. They later threatened to demonstrate in Wootton Basset (where dead soldiers are repatriated) and the uproar against this was huge with major newspapers all calling for the march to be banned. It is now illegal to be a member of the Islam4UK group, so they have had to change their name a bunch of times.

jb17 14y ago
Yeah, the British public is a bit sensitive when it comes to the army (and the queen). Islam4UK is a good example. They were an openly islamist group that wanted to overthrow the state to implement one based on Sharia law. No one really cared about that until they insulted 'our troops' (which eventually led to them being banned).
fingerprinter 14y ago
> I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this. This could come down to your view on the role of government, but I personally don't see that the majority opinion should be how a society is defined. There are dangers both ways, though I feel the government should always be pushing a more progressive social agenda. Gay marriage is a great current example. Obama is doing it right by pushing for it. Gillard in Australia is doing it wrong by saying "the people don't want it" and axing any proposals. Obama is fighting upstream for what is right and Gillard is basically saying "look, my hands are tied b/c the people don't want it". It's a cop-out for making an unpopular but right decision. In the case of free speech, there is little wiggle room, IMO. People need to be free to say what they want. It may not be popular, but that isn't the point. Long winded way of saying, the mass opinion shouldn't be the way we define civil societies. We need to do what is right. "Right" might be gray at times, but it is usually pretty clear when you get the smart people together and have them hash it out.

roco 14y ago

1984 was not a guidebook.

chernevik 14y ago

Americans aren't in much position to complain about free speech in Britain. The US government just imprisoned a man for his connection with a video deemed "offensive" by that government -- if there was any criticism by anyone but a few right-wing cranks I missed it. The man's nominal offense was a parole violation. Whether the government's pursuit of the violation, or the sentence given, were typical for such violations is beyond my expertise. However the government went out of its way to see to it that his arrest (pardon, "brought in for questioning") was known to and photographed by the press. This was an obvious effort to communicate to elements abroad the distate of the government for the video. Maybe he had to prosecuted on the parole violation -- if so, that could and should have been done much more quietly. No one seems to regard this particularly important, which I find very strange. One, anyone in the US who might want to say something "offensive" now has cause to wonder what opportunities they present to discretionary prosecution. Two, and more important, the US government has just validated censorious behaviors of a great many governments. How exactly are we going to complain to the Chinese or Egyptian government for jailing dissenters when we have made a point of doing just that? Worse, we've just told all those dissenters that they cannot be sure that we will be supporting them if they get into trouble. I don't really much care that his offense was nominally related to an international incident, or that he said means things about someone else's religion. The whole point of ignoring such problems is to deny the government _any_ excuse for censorship. Because once a government gets in the habit, it becomes quite easy to find excuses for the censorships it finds in its interests. This was a shameful episode for Americans. Joined to a cultural squishiness on speech "offensive" to one religion in particular, it is disturbing. Join it with a few more episodes of government action and the lot will begin to become dangerous.

jdminhbg 14y ago
> Americans aren't in much position to complain about free speech in Britain. The author appears to be British. So what does this have to do with anything?
- chernevik 14y ago
  It has to do with any Americans who might be reading or commenting on this topic, on this board. I expect there are enough such to merit noting events in their own country. That is so obvious I have to wonder why you are looking for arguments against even mentioning the matter.

jackcviers3 14y ago

All speech, including that inciting violence or dissent should be protected. If a populace allows imprisonment over utterances, rebellion against tyranny becomes impossible. Imagine Thomas Paine was imprisoned for "Common Sense" or the First Continental Congress was imprisoned for discussing independence, or that Martin Luther King was imprisoned for expressing the extremely unpopular and offensive notion of equality for all races, or Pope was imprisoned for his satire of slavery or Joyce for his depictions of people going to the restroom. Socrates was willing to go to death because of his ideals. The least of us should be willing to decry the suppression of opinion of any form at the risk of being offended or verbally injured or even incited to violence against the forces that support the suppression of Speech, lest we find ourselves the member of an oppressed, unpopular, and thus imprisonable or executable minority. To fail to protect the Speech of those with whom we disagree is to fail to live as free people. This was the salient theme in Orwell's 1984. Newspeak was an attempt not to remove offensive Speech, but to make impossible the act of expressing any thought through speech that may move the populace to action to throw off the shackles of tyranny that chained them to a life of slavery. Britons have a right to be angry, and a right to express their anger at these arrests. They are an assault on the human rights of all citizens of the UK and the willingness of some on this topic to accept these assaults is both unsettling and unexpected.

Zenst 14y ago

He may of had a right to free speech, but there again so did those who's memories he was offending. It is also worth noting that free speech realy offers not extra right to utilise match's with regards to burning things to cause offence. Be him burning religious fiction or paper flowers, it is the way that free speech is expressed that is the crux of the issue and as a rule free speech does not advocate match's or fire. I feel that last point is important on many levels.