The Decline of Free Speech: How the UK Became a Third-Class Nation

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, BritManToo said:

I've interacted with the boots and the bigwigs.

The boots are mainly ignorant thugs looking for an excuse to punish/oppress/intimidate you.

The bigwigs universally understanding, sympathetic and friendly.

Only female cops were like that in my happily limited interactions with British cops ( they were nightmares writ large ).

 

My partner was a JP and I escorted her to a "do" of the judiciary. I never met so many out of touch with reality old bumblers in my life as in that room. They sit in judgement of people that they have zero understanding of.

[Dionigi]

On 11/23/2024 at 5:07 PM, James105 said:

 

I can do one better and repeat what I said.  I'll bold the bit that you had trouble reading to make it easier for you. 

 

The UK though was one of the first countries (if not the first) to give citizens a version of freedom of speech (or at least started the process towards free speech) in the Magna Carter over 800 years ago in 1215.

making rules about one thing does not mean they have anything to do with free speech. you may as well clain leviticus started the process towards free speech

[RayC]

On 11/23/2024 at 9:49 PM, JonnyF said:

 

Yet Ricky Jones walks among us despite publicly urging people to slit the throats of political opponents. 

 

2 tier justice is never a good look Ray. You should stop gaslighting and just admit it.

 

How am I gaslighting? If anything, those excusing Connolly by suggesting that it was only a figure of speech and people are being too sensitive are those guilty of gaslighting. I merely asked whether free speech should extend to allowing Connolly's rhetoric and there are 3 possible answers, 'Yes', 'No', 'Dont know/care'.

 

I also believe that Jones should face prosecution and, if found guilty, be given similar punishment to Connolly.

 

How about you, Jonny? Do you believe that both Connolly and Jones should be/have been prosecuted? Neither? Jones only?

[RayC]

23 hours ago, James105 said:

 

That bit in bold (for all I care) is the equivalent to the following:

 

"I am indifferent to someone setting fire to hotels full of immigrants". 

 

This is not a pleasant thing to say.  But it is not an illegal thing to say.  Even then there is no evidence of any causal link between what she said and actions people took, nor is it possible to prove if anyone who participated in doing so even read her post.  She deleted it and apologized for it.   The correct "punishment" for this kind of post is an apology (which she gave) and an appropriate cool off ban from the social media platform she posted it on.   The incorrect punishment is 31 months in jail, especially since this was her very first offense of any type. 

 

Had she been a serial offender and committed the exact same offense she would have known better than to plead guilty and she would never have been convicted of inciting violence from that post by a jury.  The way they treated these people by remanding them in custody (for tweets/memes) and no doubt promising them reduced sentences if they plead guilty is shameful.  Those who support this should be ashamed of themselves.  

 

It is more than just an unpleasant thing to say, her tweet offers tacit approval to setting fire to the hotels.

 

For that reason, imo she should have been prosecuted.

[connda]

Scene aboard the Death Star, in which Leia explains the political reality to Grand Moff Tarkin:

    “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”

From The Guardian UK:
  “After the Charlie Hebdo shootings, heads of state marched abreast in Paris in symbolic defence of France’s long tradition of freedom of speech. This seemed reassuring. But that image was what political consultants call optics – for democracies around the world have recently seen a striking wave of anti-speech legislation…

    Surely, after one terrorist atrocity after another, stamping out the freedom to express “extremist” ideas on college campuses and online is a small price to pay for safety?

    But the core assumption on which these politicians, including Cameron, are selling these laws to the public, is simply wrong. The concept underlying such bills is that dangerous ideas are like a virus. You can quarantine them or kill them, like germs. But ideas are like a vast, rushing body of water that will uproot checkpoints and reconfigure a landscape – if barriers are placed in its way. In fact, the history of censorship shows that it is completely useless in stamping out ideas: the fastest way to spread an idea is to censor it.”

    Surely, after one terrorist atrocity after another, stamping out the freedom to express “extremist” ideas on college campuses and online is a small price to pay for safety?

    But the core assumption on which these politicians, including Cameron, are selling these laws to the public, is simply wrong. The concept underlying such bills is that dangerous ideas are like a virus. You can quarantine them or kill them, like germs. But ideas are like a vast, rushing body of water that will uproot checkpoints and reconfigure a landscape – if barriers are placed in its way. In fact, the history of censorship shows that it is completely useless in stamping out ideas: the fastest way to spread an idea is to censor it.”

[James105]

40 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

It is more than just an unpleasant thing to say, her tweet offers tacit approval to setting fire to the hotels.

 

For that reason, imo she should have been prosecuted.

 

Absolute nonsense.  There would be thousands of trans activists in jail right now if their tacit approval of horrible things they wish to happen to JK Rowling were subjected to prosecution in the same way.  

 

Taking away someones freedom, effectively ruining their life, career and prospects (for their very first offense) over a single angry post on social media (that did no actual or provable harm to anyone) in the aftermath of 3 little girls being butchered by a muslim attacker is shameful behaviour.  The UK can no longer take any moral high ground over China, Russia or North Korea in the way it treats its citizens for saying things the government does not approve of.