UK Freespeech?

Hmack posted:

Absolute rubbish and a post that is designed to be deliberately inflammatory! You may proclaim that you 'support the right' of Jones and even the Jihadists to say what they like, but from the bile in your post you obviously don't mean it. Do you by any chance support the views of the 'English Defense League'? You may well feign outrage that I am suggesting this as a possibility, but your post certainly points this way.

To describe Tommy Robinson as simply a "marginal, rather derided figure" implies some sympathy for Robinson, his beliefs and his 'antics'. The lable of "Quinoa-knitting self loathing bourgeois media" is just downright confusing and meaningless, and how on Earth does 'identitarian' come into it. I suppose it's a big word and it's nice to use big words sometimes. Do you apply this (apparent) insult to the press as whole, or simply to the centre & centre left elements of the press? 

For the record, I occasionally (but not very often) read the Guardian, I have no sympathy whatsoever towards Robinson and his downright racist views, but I also believe that where Jihadist hate preachers are encountered or uncovered (I have not personally seen any where I live, but I am sure that some do exist) then they should be prosecuted by the full extent of the law.     

Oh dear [@mention:23389351210890912] - you rather seem to have made many of my points for me.

You may proclaim that you 'support the right' of Jones and even the Jihadists to say what they like, but from the bile in your post you obviously don't mean it. 

Even if my post were full of bile - which I don't think it is, particularly - what you assert does not follow. I have nothing but contempt for what Jones says, but I will defend to my last breath his right to say it.

To describe Tommy Robinson as simply a "marginal, rather derided figure" implies some sympathy for Robinson, his beliefs and his 'antics'

Does it? How is that the case? Let's see your logic...

Do you by any chance support the views of the 'English Defense League'? You may well feign outrage that I am suggesting this as a possibility, but your post certainly points this way.

I don't feign outrage at your suggestion that I might support the EDL, because it isn't true, and if I have any emotion about your assertion, it is simply exasperated pity for your inability to comprehend - perhaps it arose from your rush to condemn - the point I was making. I have even more contempt for Robinson and his EDL buddies than I do for Jones. But I support their right to express their opinions. Whether you think I support them is of no consequence, you know nothing about me, you're just another anonymous self-righteous person on an internet forum.

The lable of "Quinoa-knitting self loathing bourgeois media" is just downright confusing and meaningless, and how on Earth does 'identitarian' come into it. I suppose it's a big word and it's nice to use big words sometimes. Do you apply this (apparent) insult to the press as whole, or simply to the centre & centre left elements of the press?

There is nothing particularly confusing or meaningless about my description of many Graun writers - unless, I suppose, one has difficulties with reading comprehension. The Guardian has at least since the 1970s been widely characterised as the journal of a particular kind of self-loathing English liberal (George Orwell wrote a lot about these people in the 1930s and '40s). Since Katherine Viner took over as editor in 2015, it has strongly aligned itself with US-style identity politics, which may explain its precipitous circulation decline in recent years. BTW, I like and regularly read The Daily Mirror, which these days is a far more 'left' newspaper than The Guardian is.

In addition, all UK newspapers have since time immemorial been characterised in certain ways - the Graun with guilty North London faux-liberals, the Telegraph with Bufton-Tuftons in the shires, the Sun with pot-bellied yobbos and Thatcherite plasterers, the Times with establishment types, the Mail with Middle England bigots, etc. These stereotypes may or not be fair, but they exist, are well-known and there is some element of truth to all of them.

A final question for you. If you don't think that the EDL and Robinson are not marginal, can you tell me what threat they pose? They may hold unpleasant views but how many people have the EDL killed or injured? I stand to be corrected, but I know of none. How many have the Islamists and jihadists killed or maimed in the past decade?

Alba1320 posted:

"Why is it 'Absolute rubbish'? Supporting someone's right to Free Expression doesn't mean you have to agree with what they say, nor do you have to like them".

 I didn't state that Kevin-W had no right to say what he said, and I believe that I had an equal right to respond to his post.  

I simply stated that (in my opinion) the views that he stated in his post were both 'absolute rubbish' or 'dribble' (to echo his own phrase) and (also in my opinion) deliberately inflammatory. 

Did you post in response to my post because Is it your opinion that Tommy Robinson has been arrested simply in violation of his right to 'free expression'? Do you know anything about him and his activities? I support anyone's right to free expression, and I have no quarrel with someone supporting another's right to free expression, but Kevin's post did not fall into that category. It was a nasty diatribe implying that the Guardian, its journalists and its readers piously pillory 'misunderstood' individuals such as Robinson whilst turning a blind eye to terrorism or support of terrorism. Now that argument is one that Kevin is entitled to make, but one that I view to be absolutely nonsensical and without a crumb of foundation, or if you like 'absolute rubbish'.

I have to say that the use of phrases or labels such as "handwringing identitarian dribble" and "members of the quinoa-knitting, self loathing bourgeois media" are in my opinion deliberately offensive, inflammatory and ultimately totally meaningless in the context of the discussion about Free Speech.

And finally, irrespective of whether "Jones and his ilk" dislike the concept of free speech, in my opinion (and it may not be yours), Tommy Robinson in light of his blatantly racist views as the founder of the EDL is "the wrong sort of people", and his views do not justify propagation of any sort.     

Kevin-W posted:

A final question for you. If you don't think that the EDL and Robinson are not marginal, can you tell me what threat they pose? They may hold unpleasant views but how many people have the EDL killed or injured? I stand to be corrected, but I know of none. How many have the Islamists and jihadists killed or maimed in the past decade?

 I am glad that you have made it clear that you have more contempt for "Robinson and his EDL buddies" than you have for Jones, and I completely accept that this is your view, so I will limit my response to your final paragraph. 

The EDL may not have killed anyone, but they have certainly intimidated and bullied. The fact that they may not have killed anyone is potentially an argument that could also be used to flatter the BNP and their thugs. It doesn't make them or their racist views any more acceptable in our society.

Perhaps one of the problems I have with your argument is that you appear to conflate the terms 'Jihadists' and 'Islamists'. The latter term can be interpreted as meaning a 'follower of Islam or Islamic Ideas' or as meaning a 'follower of hard-line Islamic militancy'.

I am happy to point out that I have even more contempt for those Jihadists who promote or support terrorism and murder than I do for the likes of Robinson who propagates unpleasant and downright racist views. I don't know Jones or for that matter anyone who writes for the Guardian, but I feel pretty confident that they would share my sentiments. 

If my contempt for Robinson and the EDL makes me "self righteous", then on this occasion I am delighted to accept the label. Are you willing to reciprocate in respect of your self-righteous comments about Jones and the Guardian.   

Alba1320

I have re-read your post and I'm afraid that I still don't really understand your post or your point, but I'll do my best. 

In the particular single sentence of mine that you quoted, I was attempting to imply that in light of the full content of his post, Kevin-W was paying lip-service to his support of Free Speech when he claimed that he supported the right of Jones to say what he said in his Guardian article. I also attempted to imply that from the tenor of his post he may feel some sympathy towards the views propagated by Robinson and the EDL. Fortunately, Kevin has put me right on that front by indicating that he has no sympathy whatsoever with the views of Robinson and the EDL.  

I certainly agree with your statement:

"Supporting someone's right to Free Expression doesn't mean you have to agree with what they say, nor do you have to like them."

 One of my points in my original post was that I don't believe that Robinson's "rights to Free Expression" were being abused by the courts in this particular instance, so in my view support for Robinson in this instance is not support for his right to Free Expression, but rather support for his right to propagate racism, intimidation and the concept of mob rule. You may feel differently about Robinson and his views and actions. That is your (and Kevin's) prerogative.     

spurrier sucks posted:

Is there no Freespeech in the UK?

Fundermentally no.  Not equivalent to the first amendment anyway.  There have been numerous legislation containing freedom of speech of the the centuries, though anything not prohibited is of course allowed.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as enshrined in U.K. law by the Human Rights Act of 1998 does guarantee freedom of expression, but then allows numerous exceptions.

In Tommy Robinson’s case, he broke contempt laws “by publishing information that could prejudice an ongoing trial” (from report on the Independent Website).

Everything you need to know about the finding of contempt of court is set out very clearly here by a practising UK barrister:

https://thesecretbarrister.com...poor-tommy-robinson/

If you don’t know how English law works in this area, probably best not to comment.

If you haven’t read an accurate report of the case, probably best not to comment.

nickpeacock posted:

If you don’t know how English law works in this area, probably best not to comment.

If you haven’t read an accurate report of the case, probably best not to comment.

:-))))

nickpeacock posted:

 

If you haven’t read an accurate report of the case, probably best not to comment.

From what I have read though... it’s hard to find details of the case as to publish details would in turn cause breaches of contempt of court.  :-)

Eloise posted:

nickpeacock posted:

 

If you haven’t read an accurate report of the case, probably best not to comment.

From what I have read though... it’s hard to find details of the case as to publish details would in turn cause breaches of contempt of court.  :-)

Once a court case is over it becomes a matter of public record. I believe (though I do not know for certain) that transcripts may be viewed by the public. I am, however, unclear as to whether that applies to conviction of contempt on its own, or whether that would have to wait until the trial to which it is related is over.

But the fact of it being a matter of public record does not necessarily mean full details published by the media (in fact almost never so, just whatever the publisher feels important, or of interest to its audience, so most commonly only the verdict and a few snippets), and I do not know whether there is any online searchable resource.

I don’t think that the Judge’s judgment/sentencing remarks in the contempt of court have yet been officially published (they may have been reported in the press, which is different). There is an ongoing and separate criminal trial, details of which MAY NOT be published.

More info (from another reliable legal source) here:

http://obiterj.blogspot.com/20...my-robinson.html?m=1

”The judgment of HHJ Morson [sic, Marson] has not been published at the time of writing this post. This ought to throw a fuller light on the facts and the court's reasoning.  Either a written judgment or a transcription of an oral judgment should be provided in accordance with this Practice Direction - (paras 14 and 15).  This post will be updated if necessary following the publication of any judgment.” (See full post for hyperlink.)

Eloise posted:

nickpeacock posted:

 

If you haven’t read an accurate report of the case, probably best not to comment.

From what I have read though... it’s hard to find details of the case as to publish details would in turn cause breaches of contempt of court.  :-)

[@mention:1566878603969011] - true in part, but see my post above. Best to stick to reliable legal sources.

There is a very good piece on this case, by 'The Secret Barrister' here, which should clarify a few things:

https://thesecretbarrister.com...tter_impression=true

Kevin-W posted:

There is a very good piece on this case, by 'The Secret Barrister' here, which should clarify a few things:

https://thesecretbarrister.com...tter_impression=true

I must admit to having approached this article with quite a bit of trepidation, knowing very little about 'The Secret Barrister' , his or her background and his or her motive for the article. 

So far, I have just had time to skim through the fairly lengthy article, but to my surprise have found it to be a pretty fair assessment of the proceedings involving the courts and Yaxley-Lennon (or Tommy Robinson), being largely critical of Yaxley-Lennon and his motives and largely supportive of the courts and their verdict. 

Yaxley-Lennon, in my view is nothing less than an out and out racist propagandist, bully and mob inspiring lout who now attempts to masquerade as a public serving vigilante. A vigilante with a very specific racist agenda.  

I guess we definitely agree on this front.   

On another (non-HI-FI) forum I frequent there are, from memory, three UK lawyers, all of whom reckon The Secret Barrister to be pretty much spot on. There’s an awful lot of misinformation scudding round the world (on all sides) so it’s good to have someone who seems reliably straight to debunk nonsense from a legal point of view.