4 ms·

Agreed, I was quite surprised (as someone from the UK) at the point of view expressed in this article. It does highlight how different our cultures are in some

by pidg 13y ago

Agreed, I was quite surprised (as someone from the UK) at the point of view expressed in this article. It does highlight how different our cultures are in some respects. Most people in the UK would support this action - the police are arresting people who have made hateful, racist or threatening comments. Why is that bad?

RK 13y ago
I think the author of the article is probably someone an average person might consider an "activist" or the like, but I (an American) also feel like the report is alarming. It sounds like the kind of thing you'd expect from Saudi Arabia, rather than a democratic society. I suppose in the US we are more in the all-or-nothing camp when it comes to free speech (at least idealistically). Edit: Most people in the UK would support this action - the police are arresting people who have made hateful, racist or threatening comments. Why is that bad? The concern is that what is perfectly fine one day (and really truly legitimate) can be "bad" the next. Better not to have a category of "bad" speech at all. Otherwise you may be at whim of political fashion.
- pidg 13y ago
  Free speech in the UK (and the rest of the EU) is governed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... Basically, part 1 says "you have free expression", while part 2 says "unless that expression could seriously damage people's lives". Works for us.
  - RK 13y ago
    I think part 2 of the Article is what people worry could easily be abused, especially when you include wording like "for the protection of health or morals". "Morals" in particular being something that is subject to very wide interpretation. Viewing from the lens of an another American political issue: separation of church and state, an aspect of freedom of religion. There are people in the US who strongly believe that we should have state sanctioned prayer in schools and feel this doesn't conflict with religious freedom. What they fail to take into account is that at some point their children could be in the school holding prayers for Not_Their_Religion. The point being that separation of church and state is the only policy that protects everyone's religious freedom. Analogously, you can argue that allowing all speech is the only way to protect everyone's freedom of speech. I really am not an expert on this. This is more of a dorm-room, after-hours student discussion level of understanding on my part and likely more a cultural reflection than a strong reflection of legal foundations, etc.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Does it make a difference if the tweets are direct threats to individuals? (Bob threats Jasmir via tweet.) Or if they are calls to violent action? (Bob tweets asking people to riot, with an added hashtag of a known violent organisation) I kind of understand why Americans dislike arrests for general hate speech. I understand why some Americans think it's weird that I'm so relaxed about it too.
wprl 13y ago
Threatening comments would not be OK in the US. Threatening someone is illegal here. The US historically has tended away from laws that apply to people's thoughts or opinions, unless those thoughts or opinions are connected with a tangible crime. Some whackjob spouting off racist comments isn't considered to be committing a crime as just being an idiot who should be ignored. That being said, if such speech resulted in a riot or a hate crime, or was harassing, the racist would not be free from the consequences of his or her speech, whether the case might ultimately be tried in civil or criminal court (or both). The Bill of Rights, arguably the most important US legal document, states that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech[.]" That does not mean however, that one is free from the consequences resulting from one's speech. IANAL, but that's my layman's understanding.

by pidg 13y ago

RK 13y ago

I think the author of the article is probably someone an average person might consider an "activist" or the like, but I (an American) also feel like the report is alarming. It sounds like the kind of thing you'd expect from Saudi Arabia, rather than a democratic society. I suppose in the US we are more in the all-or-nothing camp when it comes to free speech (at least idealistically). Edit: Most people in the UK would support this action - the police are arresting people who have made hateful, racist or threatening comments. Why is that bad? The concern is that what is perfectly fine one day (and really truly legitimate) can be "bad" the next. Better not to have a category of "bad" speech at all. Otherwise you may be at whim of political fashion.

pidg 13y ago
Free speech in the UK (and the rest of the EU) is governed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... Basically, part 1 says "you have free expression", while part 2 says "unless that expression could seriously damage people's lives". Works for us.
- RK 13y ago
  I think part 2 of the Article is what people worry could easily be abused, especially when you include wording like "for the protection of health or morals". "Morals" in particular being something that is subject to very wide interpretation. Viewing from the lens of an another American political issue: separation of church and state, an aspect of freedom of religion. There are people in the US who strongly believe that we should have state sanctioned prayer in schools and feel this doesn't conflict with religious freedom. What they fail to take into account is that at some point their children could be in the school holding prayers for Not_Their_Religion. The point being that separation of church and state is the only policy that protects everyone's religious freedom. Analogously, you can argue that allowing all speech is the only way to protect everyone's freedom of speech. I really am not an expert on this. This is more of a dorm-room, after-hours student discussion level of understanding on my part and likely more a cultural reflection than a strong reflection of legal foundations, etc.
DanBC 13y ago
Does it make a difference if the tweets are direct threats to individuals? (Bob threats Jasmir via tweet.) Or if they are calls to violent action? (Bob tweets asking people to riot, with an added hashtag of a known violent organisation) I kind of understand why Americans dislike arrests for general hate speech. I understand why some Americans think it's weird that I'm so relaxed about it too.

wprl 13y ago

Threatening comments would not be OK in the US. Threatening someone is illegal here. The US historically has tended away from laws that apply to people's thoughts or opinions, unless those thoughts or opinions are connected with a tangible crime. Some whackjob spouting off racist comments isn't considered to be committing a crime as just being an idiot who should be ignored. That being said, if such speech resulted in a riot or a hate crime, or was harassing, the racist would not be free from the consequences of his or her speech, whether the case might ultimately be tried in civil or criminal court (or both). The Bill of Rights, arguably the most important US legal document, states that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech[.]" That does not mean however, that one is free from the consequences resulting from one's speech. IANAL, but that's my layman's understanding.