Freedom of Expression is Dead in Britain

[floo]

Total freedom of expression would be terrible if all the sick racist and homophobic bigots were given the right to say exactly what they think. Notices stating, 'No Coloureds', as in the bad old days, might start appearing. 

[wigginhall]

We have always had limited freedom of expression, haven't we?   It's true that there are limits now on racist stuff, plus homophobic, but I don't see a problem.

[Steve H]

This, of course, is complete and utter gonads. You have every right to free expression, its just that responsibilty also comes with that freedom.

As far as I can see most of the people who object to the "restrictions" placed on speech are mainly objecting because they can't say "fuck off home, Paki" or some such other charming phrase without being challenged and sometimes penalised.

As for democracy, ha - have you taken a close look at our electoral system lately?

This is my instinctive reaction as well, although I must say that I I am unhappy with the category of hate crime: we have laws aplenty to deal with violence, incitement to violence, etc: Why is bashing someone over the head a more serious crime if it's racially or religiously motivated?

[JP]

Hate speech, who decides.

Mocking a religion = offending people. Below from the Met's website

A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but it is equally important that these are reported and recorded by the police.

Mock a religion - religious person reports incident which they believe is based on prejudice - police question you and now you are on their database.

[JP]

This is my instinctive reaction as well, although I must say that I I am unhappy with the category of hate crime: we have laws aplenty to deal with violence, incitement to violence, etc: Why is bashing someone over the head a more serious crime if it's racially or religiously motivated?

I fully agree with the opinion that crimes should be prosecuted under legislation that we had before "hate crime" came to the fore. Who decides what hate is.

[Nearly Sane]

Freedom of expression no longer exists in the UK. This is a cornerstone of a democracy and when one goes the other will eventually follow.

when did it ever?

[JP]

The limits placed on it are increasing.

[Nearly Sane]

The limits placed on it are increasing.

So in what sense does it 'no longer exist', as you stated,  if it never did? Further if it was a cornerstone of democracy and yet never existed then your position is that the UK has never been a democracy and there is then nothing to follow.

[JP]

Ok, it doesn't exist as it did, is my belief. It is being eroded.

Is that better?

[Nearly Sane]

Ok, it doesn't exist as it did, is my belief. It is being eroded.

Is that better?

Better perhaps to say there is less freedom of speech than there has been at some time, but where is the argument that once you reduce freedom of speech in comparison to some specific time, that this then mean there will be no democracy in future which was yout position? Would it not be possible for freedom of speech to be something that as a non absolute might increase and decrease without it being something that means the end of democracy?

[JP]

NS,

The hate crime  / incident legislation. Have you any thoughts, however brief, on the piece I put in a few posts back from the Met police website.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The hate crime  / incident legislation. Have you any thoughts, however brief, on the piece I put in a few posts back from the Met police website.

Sorry, that's not in any sense an answer to your idea that a reduction at any stage leads inevitably to an end to free speech which was your position.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The hate crime  / incident legislation. Have you any thoughts, however brief, on the piece I put in a few posts back from the Met police website.

And I'm fully in agreement with you that religion shouldn't be privileged from ridicule.

[JP]

And I'm fully in agreement with you that religion shouldn't be privileged from ridicule.

But it already is. The freedom to ridicule religion could get you lifted.

[Nearly Sane]

But it already is. The freedom to ridicule religion could get you lifted.

And? That isn't any evidence of your idea that any restriction on a soecific set of freedom of expression means that democracy will inevitably end. And I am not aware that there was ever a time where various pieces of legislation or common law would gave stopped that happening in any of the countries in the UK, can you outline when you think that was?

[JP]

You seem very unconcerned that people could be arrested for criticising religion, perhaps you are making my case for me.

First they came for the people who criticised religion ....

You know how that one goes, it was a rapid decline. Is it unfeasible that a slow creep to a place where liberty declines and authoritarianism increases, who knows where that could go, eventually.

A hate crime or incident could literally be anything. I remember a lady who went to see Frankie Boyle was upset at him making jokes about Down's syndrome as she had a child with the disorder. I suppose he could have been arrested, or at least interviewed over that.

A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Dare you object to a bloke dressed as a woman using female facilities.

[Nearly Sane]

You seem very unconcerned that people could be arrested for criticising religion, perhaps you are making my case for me.

First they came for the people who criticised religion ....

You know how that one goes, it was a rapid decline. Is it unfeasible that a slow creep to a place where liberty declines and authoritarianism increases, who knows where that could go, eventually.

A hate crime or incident could literally be anything. I remember a lady who went to see Frankie Boyle was upset at him making jokes about Down's syndrome as she had a child with the disorder. I suppose he could have been arrested, or at least interviewed over that.

A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Dare you object to a bloke dressed as a woman using female facilities.

So a complete avoidance of the questions I asked, with added irrelevance about toilets.

[JP]

Any comments on the hate crime laws and the effect they could have on freedom of thought, opinion and speech.

There is a part of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 that states "Use of threatening words or behaviour or any written material which is threatening or intends thereby to stir up religious hatred"

Blasphemy law through the back door.

[jeremyp]

So in what sense does it 'no longer exist', as you stated,  if it never did? Further if it was a cornerstone of democracy and yet never existed then your position is that the UK has never been a democracy and there is then nothing to follow.

It was me who said that, not JP.

A man has been convicted for making a joke video on the Internet. Please understand it sets a very dangerous precedent. Sure our freedom of expression was more de facto than de jure, but it doesn't help when people make pedantic points about what is a very serious issue.

[Steve H]

Total freedom of expression would be terrible if all the sick racist and homophobic bigots were given the right to say exactly what they think. Notices stating, 'No Coloureds', as in the bad old days, might start appearing. 

Even racists and homophobes should be allowed to spew their bile, provided they don't act on it, or incite others to. Notices saying "No coloureds" go beyond free speech into discriminatory acts, which is why they would no longer be allowed. In fact, we never have had total freedom of expression - the libel and slander laws are restrictions of it, as are laws about inciting to violence, pornography, etc.

[Nearly Sane]

It was me who said that, not JP.

A man has been convicted for making a joke video on the Internet. Please understand it sets a very dangerous precedent. Sure our freedom of expression was more de facto than de jure, but it doesn't help when people make pedantic points about what is a very serious issue.

He said it in reply #23. It was never de facto or de jure. Have a look at his statement in #23 and you will see what I was taking issue with.

[Aruntraveller]

Even racists and homophobes should be allowed to spew their bile, provided they don't act on it, or incite others to. Notices saying "No coloureds" go beyond free speech into discriminatory acts, which is why they would no longer be allowed. In fact, we never have had total freedom of expression - the libel and slander laws are restrictions of it, as are laws about inciting to violence, pornography, etc.

OH heck - this is a thorny issue. Your first sentence poses difficulties straight away. How do we know that people are or are not acting as a result of homophobic comments made by others?

For example, in my own mind I am fairly sure the upswing in violence against transgendered people in the USA is due in part to Trump's own approach to the subject, but how do you prove that? And if you can't is it then better to have a robust set of laws in place to try to prevent that kind of speech.

I don't know the answer to all this, I do know as a member of a group that gets targeted more often than is statistical usual with verbal abuse and violence that I sometimes change my behaviour, where I walk, even how loudly I speak sometimes depending on the area/pub/company I am in. Now firstly, that is demeaning because it reinforces what vestiges of self hatred I still have within me, and it also makes me feel like I am a coward. More importantly than that though I would ask you what price would you pay for my safety? Isn't a little curtailment of "free speech" which is nothing of the sort; it is hate speech; worth citizens of this country feeling a little bit safer and more comfortable in their own country.

As I say I don't know the answers and I feel uneasy curbing speech. At the same time I feel much more uneasy about acts of violence that are perpetrated based on racist, mysognistic and homophobic attitudes that some people express and that others may then use as a green light to act out their petty prejudices against ordinary people of this country.

[JP]

He said it in reply #23. It was never de facto or de jure. Have a look at his statement in #23 and you will see what I was taking issue with.

But as JeremyP had said, the same thing was in his opening post, yet, you did not take him up on exactly the same point. Hmmm, something fishy going on.

Anyway, I will say freedom of expression is being curtailed and as such eroded, I believe it will continue as a creeping death. The hate laws are unnecessary in the UK as we have other legislation to prosecute under.

Here is an example from your own very fine city NS, https://tinyurl.com/ybwoflrl

Racially abusing police officers, not prosecuted under hate legislation which he could have been, but he wasn't and in addition he avoided jail, yet Mark Meechan was done as a hate crime and faces jail.

I am losing confidence in the police. FGM is rampant, knife crime in London is out of control, shoplifting is almost not a crime and 999 calls can take days to get a response yet say some hurty words and they are all over it like a rash.

[Grace of God]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation.

The reason for BLM is that on nearly every indicator black people are worse off in this country. They have poorer mental health, they get treated differently (and not in a good way) by the police, they work in lower paid jobs, they have worse outcomes educationally. You get the picture. Some areas of society seek to rectify that situation. They are not saying white lives don't matter - they are saying black lives matter just the same as white lives do.

I don't think it is misrepresenting anything...
it should either be equality or nothing, both black and white lives matter equally...

[JP]

The CPS has this on their website about hate crime

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

However they go on to say that as there is no legal definition of hostility they will go with the dictionary one which includes Ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.

No, it isn't a joke.

People take this very seriously indeed. The London Mayor has set up  900 strong team to tackle hate crime which includes hurty words on Twitter etc. Just think about that. Nine hundred staff employed in the London crime fighting area to tackle "hate" crime. The law used to prosecute Count Dankula.

In the meantime London has overtaken New York for number of murders.