4 ms·

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 insensi

by 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.)
      - Nursie 14y ago
        "We are not (and should not be free) to: Insult people for no other reason than to cause them pain" Why not? Your other points have some merit. This does not. "The very fact that we have seen it and are debating it shows that it indeed caused offence." So what? Really, so what? Some moron in a bedroom in Kent posted an offensive picture. And? Are you not adult enough to ignore it? Who cares? It's not like he punched someone. "It was exactly the sort of behaviour that would cause a fight in a bar and as such would be illegal there too." Except it wasn't said in a bar, it was published online. There are a lot of things people say to each other online that they wouldn't say in a bar in case it caused a fight. That is not the standard for free speech. "Freedom to be nasty is not the same as freedom of expression." Yes, yes it is, because where you draw the line of nasty is entirely subjective. Just look at all the people that think any expression of atheism, or talk of historical record as it applies to religion is insulting. You would have these off limits as well. "I, too, believe in protecting free speech" You really don't, otherwise you wouldn't support this arrest, however abhorrent or useless you thought the opinions expressed in it were.
electromagnetic 14y ago
Agreed, it's annoying that people can't comprehend this. The fact here is that it was a deliberate insult and even with free speech it wouldn't have prevented the government from harassing him. Without free speech? Well that's easy, charge him with felony treason. The law is still enforced, and was originally written in 1848. It doesn't even take a manipulation of the wording of the act to make his life hell. > If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without ... devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels ... or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such ... imaginations, ... or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing ... or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life. If they charged him for felony treason. He wouldn't be eligible for bail. He could be held in solitary confinement. It's an indictable offence, which means even dropped it could mar his record for life without it being pardoned. He could be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for the term. He also might only be allowed a judicial hearing and no jury, meaning luck of the draw. Sorry, but this is a bit of over zealousness to harass a jerk. If anyone actually wanted to destroy him a Felony Treason charge would have done the trick even with a freedom of speech law. So I really don't see how "freedom of speech" factors in here. It's hate speech and already violates a law just for that, free speech is already trumped by that.
dannyobrien 14y ago
"You cannot walk onto a cinema and shout fire". That's actually an interesting analogy you make given the context. The "theater/fire" metaphor was first used by US Supreme Court Justice Holmes, to justify the imprisonment of anti-war protestors in World War I for distributing leaflets. It's exactly because such a broad justficiation can be so appealing and so easily misused that the US rejected that decision in favour of a far more narrow description of prohibited speech. I realise that the UK can make a different stance on free speech, but it seems ironic to pluck as your standard the very language that was used in the United States to quash opposition to the war and mass deaths that the poppy is intended to commemorate.
- sambeau 14y ago
  US Supreme Court Justice Holmes was using it as an analogy. I was not. I was using it as an example. US Supreme Court Justice Holmes was wrong. His analogy was bad one that was thankfully rejected. I may be wrong in this case about whether the freedom to insult people for no reason should be protected, I am still mulling it over, however I was not wrong and a free society is not wrong to sanction shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema.

by sambeau 14y ago

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.)
    - Nursie 14y ago
      "We are not (and should not be free) to: Insult people for no other reason than to cause them pain" Why not? Your other points have some merit. This does not. "The very fact that we have seen it and are debating it shows that it indeed caused offence." So what? Really, so what? Some moron in a bedroom in Kent posted an offensive picture. And? Are you not adult enough to ignore it? Who cares? It's not like he punched someone. "It was exactly the sort of behaviour that would cause a fight in a bar and as such would be illegal there too." Except it wasn't said in a bar, it was published online. There are a lot of things people say to each other online that they wouldn't say in a bar in case it caused a fight. That is not the standard for free speech. "Freedom to be nasty is not the same as freedom of expression." Yes, yes it is, because where you draw the line of nasty is entirely subjective. Just look at all the people that think any expression of atheism, or talk of historical record as it applies to religion is insulting. You would have these off limits as well. "I, too, believe in protecting free speech" You really don't, otherwise you wouldn't support this arrest, however abhorrent or useless you thought the opinions expressed in it were.

electromagnetic 14y ago

Agreed, it's annoying that people can't comprehend this. The fact here is that it was a deliberate insult and even with free speech it wouldn't have prevented the government from harassing him. Without free speech? Well that's easy, charge him with felony treason. The law is still enforced, and was originally written in 1848. It doesn't even take a manipulation of the wording of the act to make his life hell. > If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without ... devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels ... or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such ... imaginations, ... or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing ... or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life. If they charged him for felony treason. He wouldn't be eligible for bail. He could be held in solitary confinement. It's an indictable offence, which means even dropped it could mar his record for life without it being pardoned. He could be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for the term. He also might only be allowed a judicial hearing and no jury, meaning luck of the draw. Sorry, but this is a bit of over zealousness to harass a jerk. If anyone actually wanted to destroy him a Felony Treason charge would have done the trick even with a freedom of speech law. So I really don't see how "freedom of speech" factors in here. It's hate speech and already violates a law just for that, free speech is already trumped by that.

dannyobrien 14y ago

"You cannot walk onto a cinema and shout fire". That's actually an interesting analogy you make given the context. The "theater/fire" metaphor was first used by US Supreme Court Justice Holmes, to justify the imprisonment of anti-war protestors in World War I for distributing leaflets. It's exactly because such a broad justficiation can be so appealing and so easily misused that the US rejected that decision in favour of a far more narrow description of prohibited speech. I realise that the UK can make a different stance on free speech, but it seems ironic to pluck as your standard the very language that was used in the United States to quash opposition to the war and mass deaths that the poppy is intended to commemorate.

sambeau 14y ago
US Supreme Court Justice Holmes was using it as an analogy. I was not. I was using it as an example. US Supreme Court Justice Holmes was wrong. His analogy was bad one that was thankfully rejected. I may be wrong in this case about whether the freedom to insult people for no reason should be protected, I am still mulling it over, however I was not wrong and a free society is not wrong to sanction shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema.