4 ms·

"[Britain] also has no enshrined constitutional right to free speech" Well, we do, technically. We have no written constitution; our "constitution" is statute,

"[Britain] also has no enshrined constitutional right to free speech" Well, we do, technically. We have no written constitution; our "constitution" is statute, legal rulings, and treaties. The Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees freedom of speech.

conductor 13y ago
Then why do you arrest people for tweets? http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/24/two-men-arrested-for-tweets-after-murder http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/24/two-men-arrested-for-tweet... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-arrested-for-malicious-tweets-about-british-olympic-diver-tom-daley-and-his-late-father/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-arrested-for-malicious-twee... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/twitter-facebook-arrested-uk_n_2134858.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/twitter-facebook-ar...
- DanBC 13y ago
  Why do you arrest people for YouTube videos? http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-threat-youtube-rap/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-t... Or gaming comments? http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/11/the-first-amendment-protects-satire-and-rhetoric-lol-jk/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/11/the-first-amendment-protec...
  - jrockway 13y ago
    The US has carved so many "oh.. but..."s into the First Amendment that I laugh a little bit when Americans get on their high horse and tell everyone how free we are. Then again, it's nice to at least have it listed in the Constitution.
  - refurb 13y ago
    You're comparing people making political statements to people making threats of violence? Big difference, I think.
    - dijit 13y ago
      It's still just words.
      - lttlrck 13y ago
        'just words'? Take away words and what have you got? Don't belittle them.
throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
"The Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees freedom of speech." Guarantees so weak, they lay out at least seven censorship categories under which the Guardian could be anti-freedom-of-speech'd: 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... "The exercise of these freedoms [of expression], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." There's so little freedom-guaranteeing here, I'm having a hard time imagining a censorship law that this conventional actually disallows. I can't immediately think of a reason anyone would censor, that's not covered under one of the "necessary in a democratic society" reasons; or think of any historic example of odious censorship that can't be reasonably described as, e.g. "protection of... morals". I'm not sure what the purpose of this declaration of non-rights is, beyond making a show of pretending to have them.
- csmuk 13y ago
  Actually we can say what we like when we like and to whom we like. The only thing is there may be a consequence of doing so. The inner workings of the human rights act pretty much does nothing to prevent any consequences but it doesn't stop you speaking and neither can any law. It might stop you speaking the second time but rarely the first. The internet is a big enabler of speaking to lots of people before you have a chance to be censored. The Guardian is using that fact to drum up embarrassment and wailing the terms according to those who wish to prevent them from speaking whilst ignoring them. The government are trying to stop them speaking again and trying to prevent people from speaking before they know they want to speak. we're sitting here echoing the first words again and again. Ultimately we don't live by any laws. The law only issues consequences. The law is powerless here and the Guardian know it.

conductor 13y ago

Then why do you arrest people for tweets? http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/24/two-men-arrested-for-tweets-after-murder http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/24/two-men-arrested-for-tweet... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-arrested-for-malicious-tweets-about-british-olympic-diver-tom-daley-and-his-late-father/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-arrested-for-malicious-twee... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/twitter-facebook-arrested-uk_n_2134858.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/twitter-facebook-ar...

DanBC 13y ago
Why do you arrest people for YouTube videos? http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-threat-youtube-rap/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-t... Or gaming comments? http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/11/the-first-amendment-protects-satire-and-rhetoric-lol-jk/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/11/the-first-amendment-protec...
- jrockway 13y ago
  The US has carved so many "oh.. but..."s into the First Amendment that I laugh a little bit when Americans get on their high horse and tell everyone how free we are. Then again, it's nice to at least have it listed in the Constitution.
- refurb 13y ago
  You're comparing people making political statements to people making threats of violence? Big difference, I think.
  - dijit 13y ago
    It's still just words.
    - lttlrck 13y ago
      'just words'? Take away words and what have you got? Don't belittle them.

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago

"The Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees freedom of speech." Guarantees so weak, they lay out at least seven censorship categories under which the Guardian could be anti-freedom-of-speech'd: 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... "The exercise of these freedoms [of expression], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." There's so little freedom-guaranteeing here, I'm having a hard time imagining a censorship law that this conventional actually disallows. I can't immediately think of a reason anyone would censor, that's not covered under one of the "necessary in a democratic society" reasons; or think of any historic example of odious censorship that can't be reasonably described as, e.g. "protection of... morals". I'm not sure what the purpose of this declaration of non-rights is, beyond making a show of pretending to have them.

csmuk 13y ago
Actually we can say what we like when we like and to whom we like. The only thing is there may be a consequence of doing so. The inner workings of the human rights act pretty much does nothing to prevent any consequences but it doesn't stop you speaking and neither can any law. It might stop you speaking the second time but rarely the first. The internet is a big enabler of speaking to lots of people before you have a chance to be censored. The Guardian is using that fact to drum up embarrassment and wailing the terms according to those who wish to prevent them from speaking whilst ignoring them. The government are trying to stop them speaking again and trying to prevent people from speaking before they know they want to speak. we're sitting here echoing the first words again and again. Ultimately we don't live by any laws. The law only issues consequences. The law is powerless here and the Guardian know it.