FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Feedom of Speach
Feedom of Speach
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't think first amendment applies here. But it would be great if we have something like the first amendment." Hey I wasn't naming any individual or even this forum just referring to the media the media in General! Don't understand the snap defensive???? Yeah good idea lets also adopt their 2nd ammendmant as well! Because the USA is have very low crime rate. Did you watch the video? Yes or no answer please | |||
"You are surprised people are unconsciously incompetent❓ That’s my default position after covid and brexit 🧩" Covid????? | |||
"You are surprised people are unconsciously incompetent❓ That’s my default position after covid and brexit 🧩 Covid?????" The amount of internet experts that were all vaccine knowledgable, along with the conspiracies of 5G, Bill Gates and those so compliant they would rage war on anyone who questioned the approach. The lid was lifted on the general capabilities of Joe Public to be analytical. With that and Brexit I began to understand why we have so many issues and conflicts in life. | |||
| |||
"I don't think first amendment applies here. But it would be great if we have something like the first amendment. Hey I wasn't naming any individual or even this forum just referring to the media the media in General! Don't understand the snap defensive???? Yeah good idea lets also adopt their 2nd ammendmant as well! Because the USA is have very low crime rate. Did you watch the video? Yes or no answer please" I haven't watched it yet. I will. I wouldn't personally enjoy living in a gun culture. But I admire the Americans for sticking to their values even though they don't align with my own | |||
"I don't think first amendment applies here. But it would be great if we have something like the first amendment. Hey I wasn't naming any individual or even this forum just referring to the media the media in General! Don't understand the snap defensive???? Yeah good idea lets also adopt their 2nd ammendmant as well! Because the USA is have very low crime rate. Did you watch the video? Yes or no answer please I haven't watched it yet. I will. I wouldn't personally enjoy living in a gun culture. But I admire the Americans for sticking to their values even though they don't align with my own" OK so our current rules of freedom of speach/expression where do they come from? | |||
 | |||
"I don't think first amendment applies here. But it would be great if we have something like the first amendment. Hey I wasn't naming any individual or even this forum just referring to the media the media in General! Don't understand the snap defensive???? Yeah good idea lets also adopt their 2nd ammendmant as well! Because the USA is have very low crime rate. Did you watch the video? Yes or no answer please I haven't watched it yet. I will. I wouldn't personally enjoy living in a gun culture. But I admire the Americans for sticking to their values even though they don't align with my own OK so our current rules of freedom of speach/expression where do they come from?" They are decided by the whims of politicians and police. As I have mentioned in another thread, the communications act of 2003 that Blair passed basically says it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive" on the internet. Can you give me an absolute definition of what "grossly offensive" means? What happens in practice is the police applying the definition based on their whims. This is how you sneak in authoritarianism into a liberal democracy. Anyway, this is the question I ask to anyone who criticises the first amendment - Imagine the party you most hate is in power. Would you be happy with them deciding what you are allowed to speak and what you are not allowed to speak? Free speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy. You don't have free speech, you don't have democracy. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I've watched the video and read the OP. What is it trying to point out? The video is mostly about US free speech and how there's no way to extradite Elon Musk. " Apologies there is a part one which focuses more the the UK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9a41gopkic | |||
"This get thrown around a lot and I think some people think that thw 1st Ammendent applies in the UK. This video should clear up a lot of common myths. Please read it as this week so much crap has been thrown around about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAGlE39FKLg if you have any further questions about it then please contact black belt barrister not me" The Pilgrim Fathers sailed from England and found what was to become the USA, they brought with them a constitution and I believe that constitution is in gold and sits in a room under the speakers chair? There have been amendments but free speech is a tough nut to crack and many people of the USA have brought suits and won on their first amendments rights, as have others here. Even though we have witnessed crimes against the 1st amendment over the years it just shows it is all about the leader of the day and who wishes these rights to be upheld. And at the moment things look bad. Imagine a "Shut your cake hole" vaccine "One jab and they will shut their mouths forever" I can imagine the names put forward mine being in the top 1000.  | |||
"I've watched the video and read the OP. What is it trying to point out? The video is mostly about US free speech and how there's no way to extradite Elon Musk. Apologies there is a part one which focuses more the the UK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9a41gopkic" Judging by that, there should be an awful lot of arrests. | |||
"No our current rules come from the ECHR if you have watched the video then thats covered at the start?" If ECHR covers freedom of speech, why did we end up with the communications act that Blair passed? | |||
"No our current rules come from the ECHR if you have watched the video then thats covered at the start? If ECHR covers freedom of speech, why did we end up with the communications act that Blair passed?" Again as stated please direct any queries to blackbeltbarrister how will answer your query ASAP I am not qualified to answer your question sorry  | |||
"No our current rules come from the ECHR if you have watched the video then thats covered at the start? If ECHR covers freedom of speech, why did we end up with the communications act that Blair passed? Again as stated please direct any queries to blackbeltbarrister how will answer your query ASAP I am not qualified to answer your question sorry "No disrespect meant in any way whatsoever but why did you introduce the subject? | |||
"No our current rules come from the ECHR if you have watched the video then thats covered at the start? If ECHR covers freedom of speech, why did we end up with the communications act that Blair passed? Again as stated please direct any queries to blackbeltbarrister how will answer your query ASAP I am not qualified to answer your question sorry
No disrespect meant in any way whatsoever but why did you introduce the subject?"As explained in my fist post I thought it would be a good watch as people don't fully understand "freedom of speach" in the UK and it has caused various misinformation on socaial media. I didn't post anything by GBnews or Hope not hate (or similar) because both could be dissmissed at right ot left wing bias. I posted a qualifed barrister giveing facts on that issue not opinions. Can't get it it much more from the horses mouth. Sorry no disrespect was intended | |||
"No our current rules come from the ECHR if you have watched the video then thats covered at the start? If ECHR covers freedom of speech, why did we end up with the communications act that Blair passed? Again as stated please direct any queries to blackbeltbarrister how will answer your query ASAP I am not qualified to answer your question sorry
No disrespect meant in any way whatsoever but why did you introduce the subject?
As explained in my fist post I thought it would be a good watch as people don't fully understand "freedom of speach" in the UK and it has caused various misinformation on socaial media. I didn't post anything by GBnews or Hope not hate (or similar) because both could be dissmissed at right ot left wing bias. I posted a qualifed barrister giveing facts on that issue not opinions.
Can't get it it much more from the horses mouth. Sorry no disrespect was intended"None was taken....I didn't want to offend you. I was a bit confused by your post without apparently wanting to discuss. It's a welcome first regardless of what side of a fence someone may fall on. | |||
"I don't think first amendment applies here. But it would be great if we have something like the first amendment." We do. It's covered by article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression#:~:text=your%20own%20opinions-,Article%2010%20protects%20your%20right%20to%20hold%20your%20own%20opinions,published%20articles%2C%20books%20or%20leaflets And Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9#:~:text=Article%2010%20Freedom%20of%20expression&text=This%20right%20shall%20include%20freedom,broadcasting%2C%20television%20or%20cinema%20enterprises. Off course there are some who want to take this and many other basic rights away from us all but currently both still apply. | |||
"I don't think first amendment applies here. But it would be great if we have something like the first amendment. We do. It's covered by article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression#:~:text=your%20own%20opinions-,Article%2010%20protects%20your%20right%20to%20hold%20your%20own%20opinions,published%20articles%2C%20books%20or%20leaflets And Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9#:~:text=Article%2010%20Freedom%20of%20expression&text=This%20right%20shall%20include%20freedom,broadcasting%2C%20television%20or%20cinema%20enterprises. Off course there are some who want to take this and many other basic rights away from us all but currently both still apply." As I mentioned above, how did Blair manage to pass the communications act in 2003? It goes directly against free speech | |||
"I don't think first amendment applies here. But it would be great if we have something like the first amendment. We do. It's covered by article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression#:~:text=your%20own%20opinions-,Article%2010%20protects%20your%20right%20to%20hold%20your%20own%20opinions,published%20articles%2C%20books%20or%20leaflets And Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9#:~:text=Article%2010%20Freedom%20of%20expression&text=This%20right%20shall%20include%20freedom,broadcasting%2C%20television%20or%20cinema%20enterprises. Off course there are some who want to take this and many other basic rights away from us all but currently both still apply. As I mentioned above, how did Blair manage to pass the communications act in 2003? It goes directly against free speech " Ok I got the answer to it. The devil is in the details. Here are the exemptions: " Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to: protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety prevent disorder or crime protect health or morals protect the rights and reputations of other people prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence maintain the authority and impartiality of judges " The most important bit here is "protect health and morals". Morals.... my lord. That basically gives governments rights to ban anything they want by claiming they are doing it for "good morals" So sorry, the right to freedom of speech provided by the ECHR worth fuck all and not even near the first amendment. | |||
| |||
| |||
"This get thrown around a lot and I think some people think that thw 1st Ammendent applies in the UK. This video should clear up a lot of common myths. Please read it as this week so much crap has been thrown around about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAGlE39FKLg if you have any further questions about it then please contact black belt barrister not me The Pilgrim Fathers sailed from England and found what was to become the USA, they brought with them a constitution and I believe that constitution is in gold and sits in a room under the speakers chair? There have been amendments but free speech is a tough nut to crack and many people of the USA have brought suits and won on their first amendments rights, as have others here. Even though we have witnessed crimes against the 1st amendment over the years it just shows it is all about the leader of the day and who wishes these rights to be upheld. And at the moment things look bad. Imagine a "Shut your cake hole" vaccine "One jab and they will shut their mouths forever" I can imagine the names put forward mine being in the top 1000. "The Pilgrim Fathers were considered extremist trouble makers in their day and the King and his Government wanted shot of them. So off they went “under licence/charter” to North America and the seeds of American Christian fundamentalism was born. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think the uk have arrested almost ten times the amount russia has around free speech which is remarkable " Nobody is Russia is arrested for exercising free speech. They get arrested for fraud and bribery... | |||
"I think the uk have arrested almost ten times the amount russia has around free speech which is remarkable Nobody is Russia is arrested for exercising free speech. They get arrested for fraud and bribery..." And stay away from high rise windows | |||
"You are surprised people are unconsciously incompetent❓ That’s my default position after covid and brexit 🧩 Covid????? The amount of internet experts that were all vaccine knowledgable, along with the conspiracies of 5G, Bill Gates and those so compliant they would rage war on anyone who questioned the approach. The lid was lifted on the general capabilities of Joe Public to be analytical. With that and Brexit I began to understand why we have so many issues and conflicts in life. " tell me about the AstraZeneca vaccine? Tell me what has happened to that vaccine in recent times?…. | |||
"You are surprised people are unconsciously incompetent❓ That’s my default position after covid and brexit 🧩 Covid????? The amount of internet experts that were all vaccine knowledgable, along with the conspiracies of 5G, Bill Gates and those so compliant they would rage war on anyone who questioned the approach. The lid was lifted on the general capabilities of Joe Public to be analytical. With that and Brexit I began to understand why we have so many issues and conflicts in life. tell me about the AstraZeneca vaccine? Tell me what has happened to that vaccine in recent times?…." My point wasn’t based on the vaccine, it was based on the instant internet experts that appeared overnight, both for and against. I found it to be a remarkable insight into how people react and how they throw themselves behind what they consider to be correct based purely on their emotion. | |||
"This get thrown around a lot and I think some people think that thw 1st Ammendent applies in the UK. This video should clear up a lot of common myths. Please read it as this week so much crap has been thrown around about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAGlE39FKLg if you have any further questions about it then please contact black belt barrister not me The Pilgrim Fathers sailed from England and found what was to become the USA, they brought with them a constitution and I believe that constitution is in gold and sits in a room under the speakers chair? There have been amendments but free speech is a tough nut to crack and many people of the USA have brought suits and won on their first amendments rights, as have others here. Even though we have witnessed crimes against the 1st amendment over the years it just shows it is all about the leader of the day and who wishes these rights to be upheld. And at the moment things look bad. Imagine a "Shut your cake hole" vaccine "One jab and they will shut their mouths forever" I can imagine the names put forward mine being in the top 1000. "Pilgrim Fathers - 1620 Declaration of Independence - 1776 Constitution written - 1789 First Amendment- 1791 | |||
"I think the uk have arrested almost ten times the amount russia has around free speech which is remarkable " That’s because the perpetrators just disappear’ instead… | |||
| |||
"Why isn’t it a crime to call ppl Nat I scum ?" If you’re refering to what I think you are reffering to, there are libel and defamation laws that exist, however the onus of evidence is placed upon the claimant to compell the judge and jury that the defendant is indeed what you are trying to say | |||
| |||
"Seen a guy on YouTube abused called a nazi scum he reported it to police had video evidence and he was told to move on police didn’t want to know " Because libel and defamation tends to be a civil offence (you get compensation through the courts) not a criminal offence (like looting and rioting and destroying property - you get a jail sentance) | |||
"Seen a guy on YouTube abused called a nazi scum he reported it to police had video evidence and he was told to move on police didn’t want to know " I think it depends on what he was doing when he was called "Nazi Scum". If he was just a normal Joe, minding his own business, walking down the street and someone called him "Nazi Scum" then he'd probably have a good case. If, on the other hand, he was goose-stepping down Whitehall with his right arm held out straight, on armistice day, then calling him "Nazi Scum" is probably a fair comment. In reality the circumstances applying to the situation where this guy was called "Nazi Scum" probably lies somewhere between those two extremes but, without knowing the actual circumstances, it's difficult to say for sure whether calling him "Nazi Scum" was actually illegal or a fair reflection of what he actually was. | |||
"Seen a guy on YouTube abused called a nazi scum he reported it to police had video evidence and he was told to move on police didn’t want to know " I presume he was minding his own business when he was verbally abused in an unprovoked attack? Just out for his evening walk? Course not. 😂 | |||
"Seen a guy on YouTube abused called a nazi scum he reported it to police had video evidence and he was told to move on police didn’t want to know Because libel and defamation tends to be a civil offence (you get compensation through the courts) not a criminal offence (like looting and rioting and destroying property - you get a jail sentance)" Unless it's being said as a racial slur, in which case it could be considered under various legislation related to hate crimes. (i.e. A German tourist being called "Nazi Scum" ) | |||
"Why isn’t it a crime to call ppl Nat I scum ?" I don’t know what nat I means | |||
"I think the uk have arrested almost ten times the amount russia has around free speech which is remarkable " Ah yes, the reliable, publicly available Russian crime stats! Please! | |||
"Why isn’t it a crime to call ppl Nat I scum ?" It may be crime to call someone "Nazi Scum" in some circumstances. See my post above. | |||
"Seen a guy on YouTube abused called a nazi scum he reported it to police had video evidence and he was told to move on police didn’t want to know I think it depends on what he was doing when he was called "Nazi Scum". If he was just a normal Joe, minding his own business, walking down the street and someone called him "Nazi Scum" then he'd probably have a good case. If, on the other hand, he was goose-stepping down Whitehall with his right arm held out straight, on armistice day, then calling him "Nazi Scum" is probably a fair comment. In reality the circumstances applying to the situation where this guy was called "Nazi Scum" probably lies somewhere between those two extremes but, without knowing the actual circumstances, it's difficult to say for sure whether calling him "Nazi Scum" was actually illegal or a fair reflection of what he actually was." he was fuming a protest along with a lot of ppl that’s it remarkable offence lol | |||
"Seen a guy on YouTube abused called a nazi scum he reported it to police had video evidence and he was told to move on police didn’t want to know I think it depends on what he was doing when he was called "Nazi Scum". If he was just a normal Joe, minding his own business, walking down the street and someone called him "Nazi Scum" then he'd probably have a good case. If, on the other hand, he was goose-stepping down Whitehall with his right arm held out straight, on armistice day, then calling him "Nazi Scum" is probably a fair comment. In reality the circumstances applying to the situation where this guy was called "Nazi Scum" probably lies somewhere between those two extremes but, without knowing the actual circumstances, it's difficult to say for sure whether calling him "Nazi Scum" was actually illegal or a fair reflection of what he actually was.he was fuming a protest along with a lot of ppl that’s it remarkable offence lol" "Fuming". I'm picturing some lad fanning smoke into a protest with a lot of people. | |||
| |||
"Interestering revisting this, I predicted about 90% of the replies to this somebody wopuld jump on the defensive right away "it wasn't me" sorry I didn't say anybody, guilty conscience. Someone would argue before even watching the video Claim they would watch the video but yet gave a wrong answer showing they didn't Someone would see what they want to see and argue the relevence so always have a contingency post ready so they back down someone would challenge why I was even posting so an apology would result in a counter apology and a back off. Someone would find something online that might prove it wrong. Which may be the case but I was merely the messinger and nobody questioned the source. Most importantly this topic didn't get much interest??? Maybe because it was about legal facts and not intended to be a slanging match. Some people aren't really interested in facts and will believe what they want. Guess you don't always have to talk to a person face to face to read body language, facial expressions etc. You can deconstruct their sentances, look at repitition, pick up on a blunt tone to get a feel of how they think. Hmmmmmmm" You can't just post a video on the forum, ask everyone to watch it and expect people to debate based on it. People have lot more important stuff to do in their lives than to watch long videos posted by strangers on the internet. A better approach is to watch the video, summarise the points and post here so that people can argue on the points. The one time I asked you a question, you just said that you can't answer the question and I just have to ask that barrister. So what's the point of posting this in the forum? | |||
"Interestering revisting this, I predicted about 90% of the replies to this somebody wopuld jump on the defensive right away "it wasn't me" sorry I didn't say anybody, guilty conscience. Someone would argue before even watching the video Claim they would watch the video but yet gave a wrong answer showing they didn't Someone would see what they want to see and argue the relevence so always have a contingency post ready so they back down someone would challenge why I was even posting so an apology would result in a counter apology and a back off. Someone would find something online that might prove it wrong. Which may be the case but I was merely the messinger and nobody questioned the source. Most importantly this topic didn't get much interest??? Maybe because it was about legal facts and not intended to be a slanging match. Some people aren't really interested in facts and will believe what they want. Guess you don't always have to talk to a person face to face to read body language, facial expressions etc. You can deconstruct their sentances, look at repitition, pick up on a blunt tone to get a feel of how they think. Hmmmmmmm You can't just post a video on the forum, ask everyone to watch it and expect people to debate based on it. People have lot more important stuff to do in their lives than to watch long videos posted by strangers on the internet. A better approach is to watch the video, summarise the points and post here so that people can argue on the points. The one time I asked you a question, you just said that you can't answer the question and I just have to ask that barrister. So what's the point of posting this in the forum?" Or maybe instead of taking lots of time to post dozens of posts. You could save time by watching the video and getting the facts yourself???? I guess it is asking a lot of people to learn something! Right on the defensive buddy! didn't see that one comming! | |||
" You can't just post a video on the forum, ask everyone to watch it and expect people to debate based on it. People have lot more important stuff to do in their lives than to watch long videos posted by strangers on the internet. A better approach is to watch the video, summarise the points and post here so that people can argue on the points. The one time I asked you a question, you just said that you can't answer the question and I just have to ask that barrister. So what's the point of posting this in the forum? Or maybe instead of taking lots of time to post dozens of posts. You could save time by watching the video and getting the facts yourself???? I guess it is asking a lot of people to learn something! Right on the defensive buddy! didn't see that one comming!" 100 people watching a 20 minutes long video is 2000 minutes spent. Instead, you could just summarise the points so that people can read in a couple of points. Here is a 3 hours long debate about moral relativism and absolutism: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuzo_jUjAc If I create a thread, post just the link and say that my point is thus proven, would you watch that video? There are numerous books I have read which I could point out and say that it proves my point. Would you buy those books and read them? Instead, I summarise the arguments in the thread and argue with people directly, instead of responding to questions by asking them to go and watch videos. That's just deflection at its best. | |||
| |||
| |||
"There are some poeple in this world that wouldn't see facts if it hit them in the face and some that would argue a black cow was white just for the sake of it. Personally I'd rather someone back up their post with facts from a reputable source than go through 170 posts of drival Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Wait! I don't agree to that " You didn't even make a point. You just posted a video. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I've been making a point this whole thread" Which is what? We have a lack of understanding when it comes to the definitions of law? I studied law, unfortunately, A level and bailed. This case was one of the first that challenged us to understand more, Tuberville v Savage. If you care to look into this you may be surprised that the law is as complicated today as it was yesterday, nuance wins the day and loose lips sinks ships. I think this lends itself to be an example of being in control of one’s speech and getting the point across without breaking the law. | |||
"I've been making a point this whole thread" I asked a question and your response was to go and ask the barrister. The barrister didn't create this thread, did he? | |||
"My freedom to express my thoughts trumps any supposed freedom people have to not be offended. The way the UK is going, along with Europe. I'm currently saving up to move, probably to America." Enjoy the US. I lived there for 5 years | |||
"My freedom to express my thoughts trumps any supposed freedom people have to not be offended. The way the UK is going, along with Europe. I'm currently saving up to move, probably to America. Enjoy the US. I lived there for 5 years " Thanks still a way to go saving wise. But I've a sought after job with transferable skills, so should be good! | |||
| |||
| |||
"People want freedom of speech… but don’t like any consequences that come from that freedom of speech…. Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to defame others… Freedom of speech isn’t a get out of free card! Famously you aren’t not allowed by law to just recklessly shout fire in a crowded room " As I mentioned above, freedom of speech means freedom from a specific type of consequence - Legal action against you. If you don't like what someone says, you have the right to respond back to him. But you can't take any legal action against him. If you can take legal action against him, freedom of speech is being curtailed there. No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. About the yelling fire in a crowded theatre, I am not sure about UK, but it's perfectly legal in the US. People using this phrase are just spreading a myth. | |||
"People want freedom of speech… but don’t like any consequences that come from that freedom of speech…. Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to defame others… Freedom of speech isn’t a get out of free card! Famously you aren’t not allowed by law to just recklessly shout fire in a crowded room As I mentioned above, freedom of speech means freedom from a specific type of consequence - Legal action against you. If you don't like what someone says, you have the right to respond back to him. But you can't take any legal action against him. If you can take legal action against him, freedom of speech is being curtailed there. No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. About the yelling fire in a crowded theatre, I am not sure about UK, but it's perfectly legal in the US. People using this phrase are just spreading a myth." What about yelling bomb! In an airport? | |||
"People want freedom of speech… but don’t like any consequences that come from that freedom of speech…. Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to defame others… Freedom of speech isn’t a get out of free card! Famously you aren’t not allowed by law to just recklessly shout fire in a crowded room As I mentioned above, freedom of speech means freedom from a specific type of consequence - Legal action against you. If you don't like what someone says, you have the right to respond back to him. But you can't take any legal action against him. If you can take legal action against him, freedom of speech is being curtailed there. No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. About the yelling fire in a crowded theatre, I am not sure about UK, but it's perfectly legal in the US. People using this phrase are just spreading a myth. What about yelling bomb! In an airport?" Just like theatre owners can kick you out for yelling fire unnecessarily, airlines and airport can kick you out of the place for creating havoc. Whether you can be legally prosecuted depends a lot on context, just like the yelling fire in theatre situation. For example, if you intentionally lied about the fire, that caused a stampede and deaths, then you could be charged for manslaughter. But if nothing happens, you aren't charged. The bomb situation is serious though because most probably it will be considered a terror threat. | |||
"People want freedom of speech… but don’t like any consequences that come from that freedom of speech…. Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to defame others… Freedom of speech isn’t a get out of free card! Famously you aren’t not allowed by law to just recklessly shout fire in a crowded room As I mentioned above, freedom of speech means freedom from a specific type of consequence - Legal action against you. If you don't like what someone says, you have the right to respond back to him. But you can't take any legal action against him. If you can take legal action against him, freedom of speech is being curtailed there. No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. About the yelling fire in a crowded theatre, I am not sure about UK, but it's perfectly legal in the US. People using this phrase are just spreading a myth. What about yelling bomb! In an airport? Just like theatre owners can kick you out for yelling fire unnecessarily, airlines and airport can kick you out of the place for creating havoc. Whether you can be legally prosecuted depends a lot on context, just like the yelling fire in theatre situation. For example, if you intentionally lied about the fire, that caused a stampede and deaths, then you could be charged for manslaughter. But if nothing happens, you aren't charged. The bomb situation is serious though because most probably it will be considered a terror threat." Hmmmm I could ask blackbelt barrister or you could do it and report back to discuss? | |||
" No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. " The doctrine of precedent is the approach of the court in the context of previous court decisions. So you may be arrested by the police, however they are not the judge or jury. By using precedent, sentancing more often than not, are broadly similar, however nothing is legally binding other than the judges final say | |||
"People want freedom of speech… but don’t like any consequences that come from that freedom of speech…. Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to defame others… Freedom of speech isn’t a get out of free card! Famously you aren’t not allowed by law to just recklessly shout fire in a crowded room As I mentioned above, freedom of speech means freedom from a specific type of consequence - Legal action against you. If you don't like what someone says, you have the right to respond back to him. But you can't take any legal action against him. If you can take legal action against him, freedom of speech is being curtailed there. No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. About the yelling fire in a crowded theatre, I am not sure about UK, but it's perfectly legal in the US. People using this phrase are just spreading a myth. What about yelling bomb! In an airport? Just like theatre owners can kick you out for yelling fire unnecessarily, airlines and airport can kick you out of the place for creating havoc. Whether you can be legally prosecuted depends a lot on context, just like the yelling fire in theatre situation. For example, if you intentionally lied about the fire, that caused a stampede and deaths, then you could be charged for manslaughter. But if nothing happens, you aren't charged. The bomb situation is serious though because most probably it will be considered a terror threat. Hmmmm I could ask blackbelt barrister or you could do it and report back to discuss?" You are the one who quotes him. It's up to you to ask | |||
" No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. The doctrine of precedent is the approach of the court in the context of previous court decisions. So you may be arrested by the police, however they are not the judge or jury. By using precedent, sentancing more often than not, are broadly similar, however nothing is legally binding other than the judges final say " The question is why do we have a law that's so vague and up to interpretation that gives police the right to arrest for random things? | |||
" No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. The doctrine of precedent is the approach of the court in the context of previous court decisions. So you may be arrested by the police, however they are not the judge or jury. By using precedent, sentancing more often than not, are broadly similar, however nothing is legally binding other than the judges final say The question is why do we have a law that's so vague and up to interpretation that gives police the right to arrest for random things?" what specifically is vague in our law? | |||
" No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. The doctrine of precedent is the approach of the court in the context of previous court decisions. So you may be arrested by the police, however they are not the judge or jury. By using precedent, sentancing more often than not, are broadly similar, however nothing is legally binding other than the judges final say The question is why do we have a law that's so vague and up to interpretation that gives police the right to arrest for random things? what specifically is vague in our law?" 2003 communications act: " A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or " What does "grossly offensive" mean? | |||
" No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. The doctrine of precedent is the approach of the court in the context of previous court decisions. So you may be arrested by the police, however they are not the judge or jury. By using precedent, sentancing more often than not, are broadly similar, however nothing is legally binding other than the judges final say The question is why do we have a law that's so vague and up to interpretation that gives police the right to arrest for random things? what specifically is vague in our law? 2003 communications act: A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or What does "grossly offensive" mean? " Yep, understood. | |||
| |||
"Grossly Offensive, Indecent or Obscene communications Section 127 CA 2003 and section 1 MCA 1988 each encompass communications which are 'grossly offensive' or 'indecent’, which are ordinary English words: see Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 ALL ER 1012. Additionally, section 127 CA 2003 also encompass 'obscene communications‘. 'Obscene' also has an ordinary meaning - see R v Anderson [1972] 1 QB 304, in which the Court of Appeal (with reference to other legislation) noted 'obscene' means 'shocking, lewd and indecent’. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication. Each case must be assessed on its merits, considering the content of the communication and the context in which it was sent. Prosecutors must also consider whether the communication(s) cross the threshold at which interference with the Art. 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression is necessary and proportionate – see below re. Art 10 ECHR. Ordinarily English words, so dictionary definitions are used. " "Offensive" is a relative term. What's offensive changes from person to person. For lots of people, the existence of fab is offensive. | |||
| |||
"Grossly Offensive, Indecent or Obscene communications Section 127 CA 2003 and section 1 MCA 1988 each encompass communications which are 'grossly offensive' or 'indecent’, which are ordinary English words: see Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 ALL ER 1012. Additionally, section 127 CA 2003 also encompass 'obscene communications‘. 'Obscene' also has an ordinary meaning - see R v Anderson [1972] 1 QB 304, in which the Court of Appeal (with reference to other legislation) noted 'obscene' means 'shocking, lewd and indecent’. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication. Each case must be assessed on its merits, considering the content of the communication and the context in which it was sent. Prosecutors must also consider whether the communication(s) cross the threshold at which interference with the Art. 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression is necessary and proportionate – see below re. Art 10 ECHR. Ordinarily English words, so dictionary definitions are used. "Offensive" is a relative term. What's offensive changes from person to person. For lots of people, the existence of fab is offensive. " And if you watch the link provided by the OP it all becomes much clearer. Offensive - 1. causing someone to feel upset, resentful or annoyed 2. actively aggressive; attacking As said above, each case is assessed on its merits. | |||
"Grossly Offensive, Indecent or Obscene communications Section 127 CA 2003 and section 1 MCA 1988 each encompass communications which are 'grossly offensive' or 'indecent’, which are ordinary English words: see Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 ALL ER 1012. Additionally, section 127 CA 2003 also encompass 'obscene communications‘. 'Obscene' also has an ordinary meaning - see R v Anderson [1972] 1 QB 304, in which the Court of Appeal (with reference to other legislation) noted 'obscene' means 'shocking, lewd and indecent’. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication. Each case must be assessed on its merits, considering the content of the communication and the context in which it was sent. Prosecutors must also consider whether the communication(s) cross the threshold at which interference with the Art. 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression is necessary and proportionate – see below re. Art 10 ECHR. Ordinarily English words, so dictionary definitions are used. "Offensive" is a relative term. What's offensive changes from person to person. For lots of people, the existence of fab is offensive. And if you watch the link provided by the OP it all becomes much clearer. Offensive - 1. causing someone to feel upset, resentful or annoyed 2. actively aggressive; attacking As said above, each case is assessed on its merits." Different things upset different people. It's not that hard to see the vagueness in it. There are people who get offended over drawing a picture. Should we call it illegal? | |||
" No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. The doctrine of precedent is the approach of the court in the context of previous court decisions. So you may be arrested by the police, however they are not the judge or jury. By using precedent, sentancing more often than not, are broadly similar, however nothing is legally binding other than the judges final say The question is why do we have a law that's so vague and up to interpretation that gives police the right to arrest for random things?" The quality of the legislation will depend on the government, when it developed and passed it. If sufficient scrutiny and resources aren't invested, at that point, then the subsequent application of the law will be more troublesome.. The police and judiciary then are left with interpretation and potentially getting clarity. This partly is why our politicians should be adequate and able to do their jobs effectively. Potentially without conflicting interests. | |||
" No country has absolute freedom of speech. Different countries draw lines at different levels. The US is much better in where it draws line compared to UK and most other European countries. Direct calls for violence and libel are illegal. Whereas in the UK, we have a law that allows police to draw the line wherever the fuck they want to. The doctrine of precedent is the approach of the court in the context of previous court decisions. So you may be arrested by the police, however they are not the judge or jury. By using precedent, sentancing more often than not, are broadly similar, however nothing is legally binding other than the judges final say The question is why do we have a law that's so vague and up to interpretation that gives police the right to arrest for random things? The quality of the legislation will depend on the government, when it developed and passed it. If sufficient scrutiny and resources aren't invested, at that point, then the subsequent application of the law will be more troublesome.. The police and judiciary then are left with interpretation and potentially getting clarity. This partly is why our politicians should be adequate and able to do their jobs effectively. Potentially without conflicting interests. " I believe this is bu design and has nothing to do with lack of resources. Passing laws like these gives more control over people. | |||
