5 ms·

Ah, the good old "I never thought leopards would eat my face" after voting for the 'leopards eating people's faces party'... Somehow I have zero hope the bill

Ah, the good old "I never thought leopards would eat my face" after voting for the 'leopards eating people's faces party'... Somehow I have zero hope the bill she is proposing as a replacement could be any better than the absolute horror that the OSA is though...

Defletter 5mo ago
Ditto, but also the so-called "Free Speech Bill" advocated by the publisher which explicitly attempts to import America-style free speech into the country as law. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be something Parliament is entertaining, at least not yet.
- streetfighter64 5mo ago
  What's wrong with america-style free speech? In my opinion that's one of the few things they got more right than many european countries.
  - Defletter 5mo ago
    Have you not noticed what it's done to their country?
    - streetfighter64 5mo ago
      Done? I'm having a hard time seeing how not jailing people for objectionable tweets led to the election of Trump (which I'm assuming you're referring to). USA has many deep problems in their politics and if you haven't noticed, have been waging unjust wars for almost their entire history. The recent events are nothing more than a continuation of how it's always been going. If you want to attribute that to free speech, sure, but I'm not seeing the causation honestly.
      - Defletter 5mo ago
        This is where the propaganda surrounding American-style free speech clashes with reality. Many people assume it protects all speech unless it's incitement to imminent lawless action, "fighting words", etc. But that is simply not the case. This is in large part due to how American law doesn't do what it says. Read their First Amendment, actually read it: it's a limitation on Congress. It's become much, much more than that because their Supreme Court is a de facto legislative body. This is how you get the Red Scare; that money is speech (Buckley v. Valeo); that legal entities are people with free speech and thus campaign donations cannot be restricted (Citizens United v. FEC); that retaliatory arrests for speech are fine so long as there's probable cause for something else (Nieves v. Bartlett); that therapists have a right to convert their underage gay clients (Chiles v. Salazar); etc. Did you not hear about Mahmoud Khalil? Or Alex Pretti? Ect? The whole "objectionable tweets" thing is so overplayed too. British pundits like to wax poetic about the apparent persecution of people for political speech, and the "political speech" is, for example, Lucy Connolly calling for the burning down of a hotel building housing asylum seekers. The biggest sufferers under UK speech restrictions are not tweeters, it's protesters, and yet the examples are always tweeters. Isn't that interesting?
        streetfighter64 5mo ago
        > Many people assume Oh, did I do that? Where? > This is how you get ... Not really, you're just naming a shopping list of examples of what I mentioned earlier: "USA has many deep problems in their politics", with a very tenuous connection to the laws on speech. > Did you not hear about Mahmoud Khalil? Or Alex Pretti? Ect? I did hear about that, why are you assuming I didn't? Can you explain the connection to the issue at hand though, because I'm not seeing it. I chose the tweets example because it's one of the more ridiculous examples, but I could just as well have named Palestine Action or numerous other examples from other european countries. What's "interesting" about it? Isn't it "interesting" how you're trying very hard to paint a certain picture of the discussion?
        Defletter 5mo ago
        Okay, so let me make the question plain: what would American-style freedom of speech fix for the UK that isn't also a problem in the US despite having said freedom of speech.
  - latexr 5mo ago
    > What's wrong with america-style free speech? The biggest issue might be the false belief that it’s superior to others or that the USA is somehow “more free” than other democracies. That’s propaganda, and has precipitated the erosion of freedoms in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Exclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... As just one example of the failures of “america-style free speech”: Defending that corporations making large donations to political candidates is free speech. Talk about an incentive to corruption.
    - GJim 5mo ago
      > As just one example of the failures of “america-style free speech” Here are some more. Frankly, the USA isn't doing very well on free speech lately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

Defletter 5mo ago

Ditto, but also the so-called "Free Speech Bill" advocated by the publisher which explicitly attempts to import America-style free speech into the country as law. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be something Parliament is entertaining, at least not yet.

streetfighter64 5mo ago
What's wrong with america-style free speech? In my opinion that's one of the few things they got more right than many european countries.
- Defletter 5mo ago
  Have you not noticed what it's done to their country?
  - streetfighter64 5mo ago
    Done? I'm having a hard time seeing how not jailing people for objectionable tweets led to the election of Trump (which I'm assuming you're referring to). USA has many deep problems in their politics and if you haven't noticed, have been waging unjust wars for almost their entire history. The recent events are nothing more than a continuation of how it's always been going. If you want to attribute that to free speech, sure, but I'm not seeing the causation honestly.
    - Defletter 5mo ago
      This is where the propaganda surrounding American-style free speech clashes with reality. Many people assume it protects all speech unless it's incitement to imminent lawless action, "fighting words", etc. But that is simply not the case. This is in large part due to how American law doesn't do what it says. Read their First Amendment, actually read it: it's a limitation on Congress. It's become much, much more than that because their Supreme Court is a de facto legislative body. This is how you get the Red Scare; that money is speech (Buckley v. Valeo); that legal entities are people with free speech and thus campaign donations cannot be restricted (Citizens United v. FEC); that retaliatory arrests for speech are fine so long as there's probable cause for something else (Nieves v. Bartlett); that therapists have a right to convert their underage gay clients (Chiles v. Salazar); etc. Did you not hear about Mahmoud Khalil? Or Alex Pretti? Ect? The whole "objectionable tweets" thing is so overplayed too. British pundits like to wax poetic about the apparent persecution of people for political speech, and the "political speech" is, for example, Lucy Connolly calling for the burning down of a hotel building housing asylum seekers. The biggest sufferers under UK speech restrictions are not tweeters, it's protesters, and yet the examples are always tweeters. Isn't that interesting?
      - streetfighter64 5mo ago
        > Many people assume Oh, did I do that? Where? > This is how you get ... Not really, you're just naming a shopping list of examples of what I mentioned earlier: "USA has many deep problems in their politics", with a very tenuous connection to the laws on speech. > Did you not hear about Mahmoud Khalil? Or Alex Pretti? Ect? I did hear about that, why are you assuming I didn't? Can you explain the connection to the issue at hand though, because I'm not seeing it. I chose the tweets example because it's one of the more ridiculous examples, but I could just as well have named Palestine Action or numerous other examples from other european countries. What's "interesting" about it? Isn't it "interesting" how you're trying very hard to paint a certain picture of the discussion?
        Defletter 5mo ago
        Okay, so let me make the question plain: what would American-style freedom of speech fix for the UK that isn't also a problem in the US despite having said freedom of speech.
- latexr 5mo ago
  > What's wrong with america-style free speech? The biggest issue might be the false belief that it’s superior to others or that the USA is somehow “more free” than other democracies. That’s propaganda, and has precipitated the erosion of freedoms in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Exclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... As just one example of the failures of “america-style free speech”: Defending that corporations making large donations to political candidates is free speech. Talk about an incentive to corruption.
  - GJim 5mo ago
    > As just one example of the failures of “america-style free speech” Here are some more. Frankly, the USA isn't doing very well on free speech lately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index