Free speech is it dead and buried?

[mikem8634 10]

This thread restores some of my faith in humanity.

 

In case there is any doubt I was referring to the excellent arguments for free speech modified with responsibility as presented by posters such as RosyRat, LeMaquis and others who have used evidence to underline their points.

[six45ive 10]

I've recently had this discussion on Fb with some of my US friends and very nearly all of them (and these are liberal people) are shocked at the limitations put on free speech in this country.

Here's a response to the infamous racist woman on the underground vid.

[mikem8634 10]

I've recently had this discussion on Fb with some of my US friends and very nearly all of them (and these are liberal people) are shocked at the limitations put on free speech in this country.

Here's a response to the infamous racist woman on the underground vid.

 

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,[86][87] defamation,[86][87] incitement,[87] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[86][87] fighting words,[86] fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as making false statements (lying) in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government,[88] speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information,[89] false advertising,[87] perjury,[87] privileged communications, trade secrets,[90][91] copyright, and patents. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions.

 

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[60] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[61][62] incitement,[63] incitement to racial hatred,[64] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[63][65] glorifying terrorism,[66][67] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[68][69] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[70] sedition,[70] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[71] defamation,[72] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[73][74] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[74] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[74][75] time, manner, and place restrictions,[76] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

 

Its only Wiki admittedly but they don't seem all that different at face value at least.

[six45ive 10]

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,[86][87] defamation,[86][87] incitement,[87] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[86][87] fighting words,[86] fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as making false statements (lying) in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government,[88] speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information,[89] false advertising,[87] perjury,[87] privileged communications, trade secrets,[90][91] copyright, and patents. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions.

 

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[60] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[61][62] incitement,[63] incitement to racial hatred,[64] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[63][65] glorifying terrorism,[66][67] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[68][69] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[70] sedition,[70] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[71] defamation,[72] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[73][74] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[74] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[74][75] time, manner, and place restrictions,[76] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

 

Its only Wiki admittedly but they don't seem all that different at face value at least.

 

If you can provide a more concrete link than Wiki then I'd be prepared to have a look at it.

If, however, most of the UK legislation comes from being within the EU then you have to remember that the Human Rights Act hasn't been ratified by the UK government meaning that they can select of ignore any part of it they so wish.

[six45ive 10]

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,[86][87] defamation,[86][87] incitement,[87] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[86][87] fighting words,[86] fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as making false statements (lying) in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government,[88] speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information,[89] false advertising,[87] perjury,[87] privileged communications, trade secrets,[90][91] copyright, and patents. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions.

 

Here's what your article says on 'fighting words'.

"Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like "******" but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used.[citation needed] Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation."

 

Here's the rest of your article on freedom of speech in the US and people can judge for themselves whether the constraints are a bad as over here in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

[mikem8634 10]

If you can provide a more concrete link than Wiki then I'd be prepared to have a look at it.

If, however, most of the UK legislation comes from being within the EU then you have to remember that the Human Rights Act hasn't been ratified by the UK government meaning that they can select of ignore any part of it they so wish.

 

From the Equality and Human Rights Commission -

 

The UK Government introduced The Human Rights Act 1998 with two main aims:

 

To bring the human rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights under the jurisdiction of UK courts. This makes it possible for people to raise or claim their human rights within complaints and legal systems in the UK. The Human Rights Act 1998 therefore makes human rights more accessible – it is generally quicker, cheaper and more practical to bring your case before the UK courts.

To bring about a new culture of respect for human rights in the UK. Human rights are not just about the law and taking cases to court. They are relevant to many of the decisions people make and the situations people experience on a daily basis. The Government intended the Human Rights Act 1998 to place human rights at the heart of the way public services are delivered.

The Human Rights Act 1998 has a real application in our everyday lives in the UK. It has been used to protect older people who are being abused in care homes, to ensure that disabled children are provided with transport to get to school, and to protect women from domestic violence.

 

The rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998:

 

Right to life (Article 2)

Prohibition of torture (Article 3)

Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4)

Right to liberty and security (Article 5)

Right to a fair trial (Article 6)

No punishment without law (Article 7)

Right to respect for private and family life (Article

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)

Freedom of expression (Article 10)

Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11)

Right to marry (Article 12)

Prohibition of discrimination (Article 13)

Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol 1)

Right to education (Article 2 of Protocol 2)

Right to free elections (Article 3 of Protocol 1)

Abolition of the death penalty (Article 1 of Protocol 6).

 

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/equal-rights-equal-respect/useful-information/understanding-human-rights/

 

Government has also ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 19 of both treaties protects freedom of expression.

[mikem8634 10]

Here's what your article says on 'fighting words'.

"Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like "******" but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used.[citation needed] Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation."

 

Here's the rest of your article on freedom of speech in the US and people can judge for themselves whether the constraints are a bad as over here in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

 

Totally agree, that's what I was hoping would happen when I said "at face value at least". I should have provided the links, but, like you, I'm a bit wary of Wiki. It does seem to be unnecessarily hard to properly pin down the ECHR in UK law and I don't know enough yet about the US position for precise comparison. You make a good point about some apparent differences in what is written and what is practised in the US which could open up a very complex and subjective debate about interpretation. Hmmm, much food for thought.:confused:

[six45ive 10]

Government has also ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 19 of both treaties protects freedom of expression.

 

Which is still not the same as fully ratifying the act which allows a 'pick and choose' situation to remain.

[six45ive 10]

Totally agree, that's what I was hoping would happen when I said "at face value at least". I should have provided the links, but, like you, I'm a bit wary of Wiki. It does seem to be unnecessarily hard to properly pin down the ECHR in UK law and I don't know enough yet about the US position for precise comparison. You make a good point about some apparent differences in what is written and what is practised in the US which could open up a very complex and subjective debate about interpretation. Hmmm, much food for thought.:confused:

 

From what some of my US Fb friends have said the limitations aren't so much in what you say or how you say it but is to do with 'contact'. Hence the woman on the train wouldn't have been arrested in the US because she wasn't directing her 'views' at one individual, it was a general rant about her views on black people and that they should not be in the UK.

[mikem8634 10]

Which is still not the same as fully ratifying the act which allows a 'pick and choose' situation to remain.

 

But we do have the Human Rights Act 1998 which is law and does, as I posted above, protect freedom of expression (with the previously stated exceptions) which is, after all, what this thread is about.

[mikem8634 10]

From what some of my US Fb friends have said the limitations aren't so much in what you say or how you say it but is to do with 'contact'. Hence the woman on the train wouldn't have been arrested in the US because she wasn't directing her 'views' at one individual, it was a general rant about her views on black people and that they should not be in the UK.

 

Not sure I quite get the 'contact' thing - I may may be having a stupid moment.

[six45ive 10]

Not sure I quite get the 'contact' thing - I may may be having a stupid moment.

 

As I understand it 'contact' is incitement, harassment, fighting words, libel, slander etc all wrapped up in a nice little package that supposedly makes it easier for our US cousins to understand.

If the woman in the video I linked to had been arrested for a breach of the peace or drunk and disorderly then this is probably what would have happened in the States as so called 'hate speech' is pretty much a no goer over there.