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.   

[sikishrory]

Australia is not far behind I imagine 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, James105 said:

 

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.   

 

Notwithstanding the fact that your reply is 'whataboutery' at its' finest, perhaps thousands of trans activists should be in jail for their comments towards Rowling.

 

You would, no doubt, argue that the words of Connolly - and if you are being consistent, Jones - shouldn't be taken literally. The problem is that it only requires one nutter to actually take their words at face value and we are then talking about (attempted) murder being committed.

 

No doubt, you would wash your hands of the matter by claiming that Connolly or Jones can't held accountability or responsibility for others' actions. Therein lies the problem with you absolute free-speech advocates; the notion that words can lead to actions and the concepts of accountability and responsibility are alien to you.

[James105]

24 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Notwithstanding the fact that your reply is 'whataboutery' at its' finest, perhaps thousands of trans activists should be in jail for their comments towards Rowling.

 

You would, no doubt, argue that the words of Connolly - and if you are being consistent, Jones - shouldn't be taken literally. The problem is that it only requires one nutter to actually take their words at face value and we are then talking about (attempted) murder being committed.

 

No doubt, you would wash your hands of the matter by claiming that Connolly or Jones can't held accountability or responsibility for others' actions. Therein lies the problem with you absolute free-speech advocates; the notion that words can lead to actions and the concepts of accountability and responsibility are alien to you.

 

You are starting to sound like one of those deranged people (who used to be right leaning) who think that people can be so easily swayed into action by something they see or hear, be it a video game, a movie, or nowadays some words in a social media post on the internet.   No, they cannot be held accountable for other peoples actions and nor should they.  If you were to tell someone to go jump off a cliff do you really think you have that kind of power to make them actually do it?  Of course not.  

 

It is not whataboutery as this topic is about free speech in the UK, not an individual case.   You claimed that people should be prosecuted if they were gave their tacit approval of horrific acts.  Considering how hateful and intolerant the left is then that would see many thousands convicted and jailed for the spiteful "tacit approvals" of violence towards anyone who disagrees with them politically. I merely gave one example to counter your censorious desire to see people prosecuted for social media posts.  

[RayC]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

 

You are starting to sound like one of those deranged people (who used to be right leaning) who think that people can be so easily swayed into action by something they see or hear, be it a video game, a movie, or nowadays some words in a social media post on the internet.   No, they cannot be held accountable for other peoples actions and nor should they.  If you were to tell someone to go jump off a cliff do you really think you have that kind of power to make them actually do it?  Of course not.  

 

It is not whataboutery as this topic is about free speech in the UK, not an individual case.   You claimed that people should be prosecuted if they were gave their tacit approval of horrific acts.  Considering how hateful and intolerant the left is then that would see many thousands convicted and jailed for the spiteful "tacit approvals" of violence towards anyone who disagrees with them politically. I merely gave one example to counter your censorious desire to see people prosecuted for social media posts.  

 

And you are starting to sound like an egoistical - in the philosophical sense of the word - free speech zealot, who will not accept accountability or responsibility for the consequences of their words.

[James105]

 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

And you are starting to sound like an egoistical - in the philosophical sense of the word - free speech zealot, who will not accept accountability or responsibility for the consequences of their words.

 

Ok lets put it to the test then.  Here is another example recently posted on Twitter.  What jail term do you think should be imposed for this - an actual demand to execute someone?  31 months the same as Connolly or longer as it is not just 'tacit approval' it is a demand to execute someone?   

 

My view is these are just words and at most require a ban from social media for while, as calling for someone to be executed is unpleasant.   What say you?  

 

 

 

I've "chopped off" the more explicit parts but its still available here:

 

https://x.com/Paul_LFC3/status/1860771030509203529

[RayC]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

 

 

Ok lets put it to the test then.  Here is another example recently posted on Twitter.  What jail term do you think should be imposed for this - an actual demand to execute someone?  31 months the same as Connolly or longer as it is not just 'tacit approval' it is a demand to execute someone?   

 

My view is these are just words and at most require a ban from social media for while, as calling for someone to be executed is unpleasant.   What say you?  

 

 

 

I've "chopped off" the more explicit parts but its still available here:

 

https://x.com/Paul_LFC3/status/1860771030509203529

 

Put what to the test? I have deliberately not commented on the length of sentences imposed as I have mixed feelings about them.

 

You argue that these are "just words". What if some deranged maniac tried to act upon this "advice" and try to execute Farage. Should "I didn't think that anyone would take me seriously. I didn't mean that Farage should actually be executed", be an acceptable defence and free the petitioner of all responsibility?

 

My point - and only point - is that words may have consequences and that individuals need to be accountable and responsible for their words.

[James105]

42 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Put what to the test? I have deliberately not commented on the length of sentences imposed as I have mixed feelings about them.

 

You argue that these are "just words". What if some deranged maniac tried to act upon this "advice" and try to execute Farage. Should "I didn't think that anyone would take me seriously. I didn't mean that Farage should actually be executed", be an acceptable defence and free the petitioner of all responsibility?

 

My point - and only point - is that words may have consequences and that individuals need to be accountable and responsible for their words.

 

So your premise now is that it is deranged maniacs that act on peoples social media words and if nobody posted hurty words on social media they would not ever carry out a deranged act even though they are deranged maniacs?   Really?  

 

You still avoided my question though.  What sentence (if any) should the individual who posted the example above receive?  It's okay to admit you were wrong and there should be no custodial sentence given for posting mean words on social media if you do not think he should be jailed for this.  

[3NUMBAS]

On 11/23/2024 at 8:03 AM, Nid_Noi said:

I haven’t been to the UK since the early 90s. Are they still speakers at Hyde Park Corner?

Yes but now they’re Muslims and other Middle East rabble moaning about jews

[3NUMBAS]

5/yrs for throwing a milk shake at Nigel,farage and ruining is his suit

[RayC]

17 hours ago, James105 said:

 

So your premise now is that it is deranged maniacs that act on peoples social media words and if nobody posted hurty words on social media they would not ever carry out a deranged act even though they are deranged maniacs?   Really?  

 

Really? No! How on earth you can suggest that premise can be logically derived from my previous comments is beyond me!

 

To state the blindingly obvious, it does not need 100% of individuals to act upon "hurty words" to 'Kill Farage', it only requires one.

 

I imagine that it is impossible to prove categorically that a statement was the direct cause of an event, but if professional psychologists and/or psychiatrists deemed it a contributing factor in the hypothetical example cited above, no doubt Farage's family and friends would derive great comfort from the petitioner stating, "I didn't mean that my words should be taken literally".

 

If you were the petitioner, would you still deny any responsibility and accountability for the event?

 

17 hours ago, James105 said:

You still avoided my question though.  What sentence (if any) should the individual who posted the example above receive?  It's okay to admit you were wrong and there should be no custodial sentence given for posting mean words on social media if you do not think he should be jailed for this.  

 

Wrong about what precisely?

 

Wrt Connolly, I stated previously that I had mixed emotions about her sentence. On the one hand, 31 months seems excessive for a first offence. However, if imposing such a sentence is meant to be a deterrent, it has arguably served that purpose. At the other end of the scale, would a £100 fine and/or 60 hours community service have acted as much of a deterrent to Connolly and others? Doubtful. These comments apply equally to the petitioner calling for Farage's execution.

 

In short, I don't know/ am undecided about what a suitable sentence should be. However, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep over the plight of a self-professed racist.

 

As an aside, you appear to be in favour of absolute free speech and that the speakers/ writers cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Would you therefore agree those 'mad mullahs', who openly use the more violent verses of the Qur'an, to stir up hatred are guilty of nothing more than spouting 'hurty words' and should bear no responsibility or accountability for any subsequent events?

[James105]

19 minutes ago, RayC said:

Wrt Connolly, I stated previously that I had mixed emotions about her sentence. On the one hand, 31 months seems excessive for a first offence. However, if imposing such a sentence is meant to be a deterrent, it has arguably served that purpose.

 

Quite clearly it hasn't acted as a deterrent as I supplied you with evidence of someone making a post demanding that a politician be executed.  So imposing such a sentence merely ruins that persons life for no good reason whatsoever.  The burden of proof for taking someones freedom away should be a bit higher than "maybe it contributed, maybe it didn't" don't you think?  

 

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

As an aside, you appear to be in favour of absolute free speech and that the speakers/ writers cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Would you therefore agree those 'mad mullahs', who openly use the more violent verses of the Qur'an, to stir up hatred are guilty of nothing more than spouting 'hurty words' and should bear no responsibility or accountability for any subsequent events?

 

I'm in favour of all terrorists on the watchlists being deported and making the religion of Islam illegal in the UK so no, I am not a free speech absolutist.  There are certain cultures that are so backwards and so incompatible and have such hatred of the west and all it stands for that they should return to one of the many, many countries where they can practice their barbaric ways.  Without this religion those 3 innocent little girls that were slaughtered in Southport would be alive and well today and Connolly would be free living her life in peace as she would never have made such a post.   

[RayC]

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Quite clearly it hasn't acted as a deterrent as I supplied you with evidence of someone making a post demanding that a politician be executed.  So imposing such a sentence merely ruins that persons life for no good reason whatsoever.  The burden of proof for taking someones freedom away should be a bit higher than "maybe it contributed, maybe it didn't" don't you think?  

 

You appear to view everything in 'black and white', 100% or nothing.

 

I've seen fewer reports in the press recently of 'hate speech' related incidents, which is not sufficient to conclude that tough sentencing has had a deterrent effect. That's why I said " .. arguably it has acted as a deterrent". Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't.

 

One thing's for sure, one counter-example isn't enough to reject the premise.

 

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

I'm in favour of all terrorists on the watchlists being deported and making the religion of Islam illegal in the UK so no, I am not a free speech absolutist.  There are certain cultures that are so backwards and so incompatible and have such hatred of the west and all it stands for that they should return to one of the many, many countries where they can practice their barbaric ways.  Without this religion those 3 innocent little girls that were slaughtered in Southport would be alive and well today and Connolly would be free living her life in peace as she would never have made such a post.   

 

You're beginning to sound like a White Supremacist.

 

So free speech on your terms? You get to decide what's acceptable and what's not.

 

Once again, it's all or nothing: Ban Islam in the UK - begs the question, 'How'? - presumably, on the basis that all those that practice the religion are evil? The data doesn't seem to support that premise:

 

https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/do-british-muslims-commit-less-crime

 

What happened to those little girls was a tragedy. If the perpetrator met with an unfortunate accident, I'd shed no tears. 

 

[James105]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

You're beginning to sound like a White Supremacist.

 

So free speech on your terms? You get to decide what's acceptable and what's not.

 

Once again, it's all or nothing: Ban Islam in the UK - begs the question, 'How'? - presumably, on the basis that all those that practice the religion are evil? The data doesn't seem to support that premise:

 

https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/do-british-muslims-commit-less-crime

 

What happened to those little girls was a tragedy. If the perpetrator met with an unfortunate accident, I'd shed no tears. 

 

 

White supremacist?  Really? I didn't realize Islam was a race I actually thought it was an ideology.

 

Anyway I am prepared to change my mind.  Perhaps you can educate me on the benefits Islam brings to the UK versus the cons.  I can think of plenty of cons with terrorism, subjugation of women that are not allowed to work, incestual marriages, FGM, grooming rape gangs, burhkas, blashphomy "laws" (Batley school teacher), higher than average unemployment and anti-semitism.  For the pros I am struggling to think of anything they bring that is positive.  I'm sure you will mention doctors and nurses etc but unless they are here in a higher percentage than other groups I don't think that counts.  So feel free to educate me and change my mind.  

 

Since there is a 2 tier justice system and none of the violent mob that threatened to kill the Batley school teacher or the thugs from Manchester airport are in those stats you provided, as well as the police not typically recording this information (or making it available) I am inclined not to believe the stats on crime here, but I didn't include it in my list of cons anyway.