| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm pretty sure you're aware that that means actually hypothesising the death of the monarch in a public place by voicing the opinion lol.
Anyway the point is that the freedom of speech issue here is that they were banned for making threats, but I guess no-one really even bothered to read the article in full. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
Anyway the point is that the freedom of speech issue here is that they were banned for making threats, but I guess no-one really even bothered to read the article in full. |
I read the article but didn't see that point made.
| Quote: |
| Fining Mac member Emdadur Choudhury �50 for a public order offence in March, District Judge Howard Riddle told the hearing at Woolwich Crown Court that it "was a calculated and deliberate insult to the dead and those who mourn or remember them". |
So the government can fine people for insults. Free speech not so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Tory MP Mike Freer, who called for the Home Secretary to take action against the extremist group after being threatened by them at a constituency surgery, urged officials to make sure the group does not simply rebrand itself. |
It was certainly threatening that got the ball rolling.
| Quote: |
| Fining Mac member Emdadur Choudhury �50 for a public order offence in March, District Judge Howard Riddle told the hearing at Woolwich Crown Court that it "was a calculated and deliberate insult to the dead and those who mourn or remember them". |
The kind of behaviour likely to potentially start off behaviour where parties on either side could be in danger of an altercation no?
Pretty much a public dissorder offense issue / inciting haterd more than freedom of speech.
You don't see that?
If the police or the courts see groups deliberately making calculated atempts to upset those mourning lost loved ones etc, it pretty much becomes a public dissorder issue rather than freedom of speech as said behaviour is likely to potentially lead to public strife which could pose harm to either side.
I think we can all see the common sense behind the thinking? It seems responsible to me and for the protection of both parties ultimately.
Last edited by The Floating World on Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So the government can fine people for insults. Free speech not so much. |
You're overlooking the fact that it was deemed a 'calculated' attempt, thus one set up in order to create public dissorder.
The ruling would be the same in the US. I'll leave it to you to go back and pick the correct part of the us freedom of speech laws posted on page one that would apply. The wording is different but bascially both countries would rule the same way IF the actions were believed to lead to potential public dissorder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The immediate ban is part of the government's new drive to proscribe organisations that glorify terrorism in addition to those having direct links to terrorist groups, and will make membership of Muslims Against Crusades a criminal offence. |
Again, the exact same would've happened in the us based on the bolded above.
Are we agreed on that or not?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/11/david-cameron-armistice-day-ban?intcmp=239 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So the government can fine people for insults. Free speech not so much. |
You're overlooking the fact that it was deemed a 'calculated' attempt, thus one set up in order to create public dissorder.
The ruling would be the same in the US. I'll leave it to you to go back and pick the correct part of the us freedom of speech laws posted on page one that would apply. The wording is different but bascially both countries would rule the same way IF the actions were believed to lead to potential public dissorder. |
Well, I don't know. It would depend a lot on who is the judge, and whether it went to the Supreme Court, etc. It does seem like a fact-dependent ruling, and that's always a good thing. But, political speech is supposed to be the most protected speech.
Fighting words would have to be directed towards an individual, not just be calculated. Banning fighting words is about banning words inherently likely to incite immediate physical retaliation. Otherwise, it would have to present a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. That would mean that they were directly urging comrades to breach the peace.
Saying disgusting things about British/American troops doesn't fit these very high U.S. thresholds on content regulations of speech. "Offensive to the point of angering someone" isn't enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The immediate ban is part of the government's new drive to proscribe organisations that glorify terrorism in addition to those having direct links to terrorist groups, and will make membership of Muslims Against Crusades a criminal offence. |
Again, the exact same would've happened in the us based on the bolded above.
Are we agreed on that or not?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/11/david-cameron-armistice-day-ban?intcmp=239 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Fighting words would have to be directed towards an individual, not just be calculated. Banning fighting words is about banning words inherently likely to incite immediate physical retaliation. Otherwise, it would have to present a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. That would mean that they were directly urging comrades to breach the peace.
Saying disgusting things about British/American troops doesn't fit these very high U.S. thresholds on content regulations of speech. "Offensive to the point of angering someone" isn't enough. |
This is true in the U.S.
There are plenty of groups which actively and openly hate cherished parts of American culture or its subcultures. Until they actually imply or threaten violence, they're fine.
The U.K. is not the same, and if it wants to abide by a stricter definition of "free speech", it's the right of that country's people to do so. But it's silly to say that the laws are the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Deary me. Seems you guys only are willing to look at exclusive parts of the texts. refering you to page one didn;t help, nor did bolding. Let's try the megphone approach -
| Quote: |
| The immediate ban is part of the government's new drive to proscribe organisations that glorify terrorism in addition to those having direct links to terrorist groups, and will make membership of Muslims Against Crusades a criminal offence. |
Again, the exact same would've happened in the us based on the bolded above.
Are we agreed on that or not?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/11/david-cameron-armistice-day-ban?intcmp=239
And why would the UK or any other nation need to make it's laws the same as in the us to be considered 'true freedom of speech?
What an odd notion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
American posters claiming the UK has less free speach than the US is absurd to the highest degree.
|
I'm curious. What are the regulations on free speech in the UK. Are they different than in the US? |
The constitution in the UK is unwritten and laws generally go according to public sensibilities not what the government arbitrarily decides. The UK may have a few things that limit free speech like anti blasphemy laws (which have been ignored for many decades). Any limits on free speech in the UK that would be unusual by American standards have been ridiculed and ignored by the British and the British government. Essentially speech in the UK is just as free as speech in the USA. In fact my opinion is that freedom of expression in the UK is greater than that in the USA. The government arbitrarily deciding to limit freedom of speech applies more to France and Germany. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
Deary me. Seems you guys only are willing to look at exclusive parts of the texts. refering you to page one didn;t help, nor did bolding. Let's try the megphone approach -
| Quote: |
| The immediate ban is part of the government's new drive to proscribe organisations that glorify terrorism in addition to those having direct links to terrorist groups, and will make membership of Muslims Against Crusades a criminal offence. |
Again, the exact same would've happened in the us based on the bolded above.
Are we agreed on that or not?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/11/david-cameron-armistice-day-ban?intcmp=239
And why would the UK or any other nation need to make it's laws the same as in the us to be considered 'true freedom of speech?
What an odd notion! |
So what you're saying is that the ban has nothing to do with speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No I'm saying the those making the speech were trying to incite public dissorder, made threats to a member of parliament and have links to terorist organisations.
Now are you trying to say that
1
| Quote: |
| organisations that glorify terrorism in addition to those having direct links to terrorist groups |
Are given freedom of public speech in the US
OR are you just 2
trolling
3 trying to win an argument?
If either of the above apply, please let me know as I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here and can find no other explanation for you frequently ignoring the links to terrorist groups angle when you know yourself far worse breaches of freedom have been commited in the us under your patriot act with regards to this issue.
I doubt you'll reply directly as it seems you just want to win an 'the us has the best free speech' argument which is specious and completely open to a miriad range of interpretations. I bet a pound to a peanut you will reply to this part of my post and not the part I've bolded in red... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
No I'm saying the those making the speech were trying to incite public dissorder, made threats to a member of parliament and have links to terorist organisations.
Now are you trying to say that
1
| Quote: |
| organisations that glorify terrorism in addition to those having direct links to terrorist groups |
Are given freedom of public speech in the US
OR are you just 2
trolling
3 trying to win an argument?
If either of the above apply, please let me know as I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here and can find no other explanation for you frequently ignoring the links to terrorist groups angle when you know yourself far worse breaches of freedom have been commited in the us under your patriot act with regards to this issue.
I doubt you'll reply directly as it seems you just want to win an 'the us has the best free speech' argument which is specious and completely open to a miriad range of interpretations. I bet a pound to a peanut you will reply to this part of my post and not the part I've bolded in red... |
I was just telling you the recognized content-based exceptions under the US Constitution as its been fairly recently interpreted. I don't know what's going on in the UK, and honestly the link to Cameron's justification confused me; he wasn't presenting a legal standard but a political argument.
Its true that organizations which have direct links to terrorism are put onto a State Dept. terrorist list here in the States. In such a case, yes, coordination with groups that undertake terrorist operations will not be tolerated.
Again, I'm unclear on the facts here. I was kind of hoping you would clear them up for me. If these were "true threats" to a member of parliament, then that would be impermissible speech even under the US Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Again, I'm unclear on the facts here. I was kind of hoping you would clear them up for me. If these were "true threats" to a member of parliament, then that would be impermissible speech even under the US Constitution. |
It was clearly written in the article and I quoted it twice, I believe.
Oh well.
What to you consitutes a 'true' threat. The nature of the threat to the mp wasn't mentioned eplicitly, I assume it was of a 'threatening' nature though... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Again, I'm unclear on the facts here. I was kind of hoping you would clear them up for me. If these were "true threats" to a member of parliament, then that would be impermissible speech even under the US Constitution. |
It was clearly written in the article and I quoted it twice, I believe.
Oh well.
What to you consitutes a 'true' threat. The nature of the threat to the mp wasn't mentioned eplicitly, I assume it was of a 'threatening' nature though... |
Right, I'd like to know what "glorifying terrorism" entailed.
It seems to me that point may well be moot, though. Apparently this was an already banned terrorist organization that tried to operate under a different name. This is not really a speech issue at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
