UK Freespeech?

spurrier sucks posted:

Was thinking more about Timmy Robinson. I guess you could say he was charged. 

Sorry, never heard of him.

I believe there is freedom of speech which means freedom to hold views and to express them, but not freedom to do various other things in the progress, such as incite violence, disturb the peace, etc, so it is a matter of how you speak, and to some extent where and when.

rodwsmith posted:

"Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre"

Just to demonstrate the subjectivity regarding freedom of speech, I'd counter with three hyperbolic questions;

1) what can one shout when there is actually a fire in a crowded theatre?

2) if the theatre is not crowded, is one free to shout "fire"?

3) what constitutes a crowded theatre?

In the US the right to burn the US flag is protected under freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment; however, should you choose to do so in a crowded theatre you'll be subject to prosecution under local fire codes. Depending on the outcome of the burning, you may be subject to civil lawsuits as well.

Point being there is an appropriate time and place to exercise the extremes of freedom of speech.

joerand posted:
rodwsmith posted:

"Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre"

Just to demonstrate the subjectivity regarding freedom of speech, I'd counter with three hyperbolic questions;

1) what can one shout when there is actually a fire in a crowded theatre?

2) if the theatre is not crowded, is one free to shout "fire"?

3) what constitutes a crowded theatre?

In the US the right to burn the US flag is protected under freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment; however, should you choose to do so in a crowded theatre you'll be subject to prosecution under local fire codes. Depending on the outcome of the burning, you may be subject to civil lawsuits as well.

Point being there is an appropriate time and place to exercise the extremes of freedom of speech.

And is it acceptable to potentially and maybe actually ruin the enjoyment of others - doesn’t matter how many or few in the theatre - bupy shouting ‘fire’ when there isn’t one, or indeed shouting anything unless it is a real warning about a real and immediate event of something that will endanger said people if immediate action is not taken?

It's a quote - perhaps apocryphal - from US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes, over a century ago. And neatly illustrates why freedom of speech is not the right to say any thing at any time. But it doesn't warrant, or bear over analysis. As has been demonstrated

Tommy Robinson has been convicted of, and jailed for (he already had a suspended sentence), Contempt of Court - a crime, and nothing to do with free speech - I have no idea what 'Spurrier Sucks' was angling at when (s)he suggested there was no free speech in the UK as a result of this. For one thing, Robinson pleaded guilty. 

rodwsmith posted:

It's a quote - perhaps apocryphal - from US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes, over a century ago. And neatly illustrates why freedom of speech is not the right to say any thing at any time. But it doesn't warrant, or bear over analysis. As has been demonstrated

Tommy Robinson has been convicted of, and jailed for (he already had a suspended sentence), Contempt of Court - a crime, and nothing to do with free speech - I have no idea what 'Spurrier Sucks' was angling at when (s)he suggested there was no free speech in the UK as a result of this. For one thing, Robinson pleaded guilty. 

I didn't suggest. I asked. I'm not in the UK. I'm in the US. Just curious of thoughts from people that actually live there. What I've seen seen reported seems rather scary to me. Especially the gag order put on the press about reporting on the story. However I think that has been lifted now. That said I don't know who the guy is or what he has said or stands for and I don't really care. Going to jail for speech is scary to me. Is it to people that live there or is him going to jail accepted there?

Robinson was jailed for being in contempt of court, to which he pleaded guilty. He used social media to broadcast details of an ongoing trial, potentially forcing that trial to be re-run at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

He was sentenced to 10 months with a further 3 months for breaching the terms of a previous suspended sentence.

Are you a supporter of Robinson?

Christopher_M posted:

Robinson was jailed for being in contempt of court, to which he pleaded guilty. He used social media to broadcast details of an ongoing trial, potentially forcing that trial to be re-run at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

He was sentenced to 10 months with a further 3 months for breaching the terms of a previous suspended sentence.

Are you a supporter of Robinson?

Know nothing about him as stated in my previous post. Only know what has been reported here which is very little. That said from what you've said and what I've heard reported I find it scary. Just thinking if something like that could happen here or when will it happen. 

As darcas influencing a jury by media coverage maybe you've heard of a little incident that happened here involving some guy named OJ? That had a little media coverage. Just thinking what if the court jailed people for covering that or any other trial. 

He hasn’t gone to jail for speech. He has gone to jail for contempt of court (as detailed above), and because he is a serial criminal who would have been in jail anyway if his previous conviction had not had its sentence suspended.

This is obviously being mis-reported in the US (in whatever media you are consulting anyway). At risk of stirring up the not-legal-to-stir I would suggest that this is because your media, like your country, is in a very strange position currently.

spurrier sucks posted:
Christopher_M posted:

Robinson was jailed for being in contempt of court, to which he pleaded guilty. He used social media to broadcast details of an ongoing trial, potentially forcing that trial to be re-run at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

He was sentenced to 10 months with a further 3 months for breaching the terms of a previous suspended sentence.

Are you a supporter of Robinson?

Know nothing about him as stated in my previous post. Only know what has been reported here which is very little. That said from what you've said and what I've heard reported I find it scary. Just thinking if something like that could happen here or when will it happen. 

As darcas influencing a jury by media coverage maybe you've heard of a little incident that happened here involving some guy named OJ? That had a little media coverage. Just thinking what if the court jailed people for covering that or any other trial. 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44307037

I'm hoping this link works in the US.

rodwsmith posted:

He hasn’t gone to jail for speech. He has gone to jail for contempt of court (as detailed above), and because he is a serial criminal who would have been in jail anyway if his previous conviction had not had its sentence suspended.

This is obviously being mis-reported in the US (in whatever media you are consulting anyway). At risk of stirring up the not-legal-to-stir I would suggest that this is because your media, like your country, is in a very strange position currently.

Contempt of court for? I will say I did not hear in any report about contempt of court  so it is very possible that our media is not reporting the truth  shocking I know  

ill try the link posted below as well. 

spurrier sucks posted:
rodwsmith posted:

It's a quote - perhaps apocryphal - from US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes, over a century ago. And neatly illustrates why freedom of speech is not the right to say any thing at any time. But it doesn't warrant, or bear over analysis. As has been demonstrated

Tommy Robinson has been convicted of, and jailed for (he already had a suspended sentence), Contempt of Court - a crime, and nothing to do with free speech - I have no idea what 'Spurrier Sucks' was angling at when (s)he suggested there was no free speech in the UK as a result of this. For one thing, Robinson pleaded guilty. 

I didn't suggest. I asked. I'm not in the UK. I'm in the US. Just curious of thoughts from people that actually live there. What I've seen reported seems rather scary to me. Especially the gag order put on the press about reporting on the story. However I think that has been lifted now. That said I don't know who the guy is or what he has said or stands for and I don't really care. Going to jail for speech is scary to me. Is it to people that live there or is him going to jail accepted there?

Ah now it makes sense. Apparently the alt-right in the US has decided that Robinson is a martyr to the far-right cause.

For your information, Robinson founded the ultra far right, blatantly racist and despicable 'English Defence League', and as others have pointed out has been sent to prison on this occasion for a clear contempt of court. As a matter of interest he has also been jailed in the past for attempting to fly to the US using someone else's passport.

I guess the reports you say you have seen originated from Breitbart or FoxNews, or perhaps from a certain DT himself?  

Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 'Free Speech'.

For justice to prevail in a trial the jury must hear and take regard only of what is presented to them in the courtroom. Any prior information, or information leaked from somewhere, etc, can prejudice them and hence prejudice the trial. Without spending time looking into this particular case I suspect it was to do with that.

An associated area is trial by media - contempt of court would cover ignoring reporting restrictions, however I believe that the media should not publicise the names of people being investigated by police until or unless that leads to formal charges, and theereafter they need to avoid any speculation, but simply report facts. I think this is an area that should be enforced by law, but that is another subject. People can and have been wrongfully accused, sometimes maliciously and sometimes through poor evidence or its investigation, and in such circumstances it is bad enougn without media attention that can literally ruin lives. The recent pillorisation of Cliff Richard was a good example.

spurrier sucks posted:

Contempt of court for?

Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court last Friday. He was using social media to broadcast details of an ongoing trial, and his footage, shown at his court appearance, showed him filming himself and people involved in the original, ongoing trial. In his trial for contempt, the court was told that the footage had been watched 250,000 times within hours of being posted on Fb by Robinson.

I apologise for asking if you were one of the defendant's supporters when you had already written that you know nothing about him.

Whilst in no way wishing to appear an apologist for Tommy Robinson, I can't really see any real difference between what he was doing last week outside Leeds Crown Court, and the very similar behaviour previously exhibited by the press, where "celebrities" have been appearing in court, with resultant media scrum.

Whether or not this should be allowed to happen is, as correctly pointed out by IB, above, another matter, but it would seem to me that the rules should apply equally to all, if there is a fear that such behaviour might prejudice the trial outcome.

I do appreciate that he was, at his court appearance, charged with contempt of court, being under an existing suspended sentence, but he was actually arrested for breach of the peace, and removed from the scene.

Let me state quite clearly that I have no sympathy with Mr. Yaxley-Lennon's views, but I am slightly uncomfortable with what appears to be a double standard in operation here.

A simple internet search of "Timmy Robinson and contempt of court" was enough to reveal the correct name and who the individual was and enough articles to indicate that he has had a number of run in's with the law and court systems. So one could do a simple inquiry and find out enough information about the man to realize he is a activist with a cause and pushing boundaries.   With the number of crazies we have, including political leaders in our wonderful country, that use social media to spread what ever thought they may have, whether truth or lies, could make one wonder what purpose is freedom of speech if it is used for personal gain at the expense of and cause harm to others.

As usual my one comment on a thread that could go on for pages.......

and

imho and ymmv

It is my understanding that:-

The right to freedom of speech is recognised in the UK as a fundamental human right. However, this right must be used responsibly and there are certain exceptions.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right; this means that there are exceptions to this fundamental right. For example publishing material or making comments that are specifically designed to incite racial hatred can be deemed to be a hate crime. Anyone who is found committing this offence can be charged in a criminal court. Many people argue that publishing a person’s opinion, even if it is offensive to others, is a right. However, if the material is intended to bring harm against others then that is an abuse of the victim’s other civil and human rights.

There are other exceptions to this right and they do include restrictions on the grounds of national security. Further exceptions include restrictions on the grounds of public safety, the protection of health and morals, and restrictions to prevent crime and disorder.

The disclosure of information that has been received in confidence is another exception.

The main exceptions to the rights of freedom of speech are to ensure they do not endanger or harm others.

rodwsmith posted:

"Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre"

Or indeed, any of the vile disgusting vitriol that serial-criminal Mr Yaxley-Lennon ('Tommy Robinson' is a self-appointed pseudonym) spouts.

This Owen Jones piece sums it up well (link to article in the guardian)

Actually Rod, freedom of speech DOES include the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre (it is just that there may be legal consequences for the shouter).

The late Christopher Hitchens is very good on this subject (Google is your friend); the great Hitch said of the original 1919 court case that produced this rather banal and overused analogy: "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." 

In any case, as someone else pointed out, this particular case is an issue about contempt of court, not freedom of speech.

As for Owen Jones, he is an arse and a colossal hypocrite, and that article is just the usual handwringing identitarian dribble we've come to expect from the 21st century Guardian. He and other members of the quinoa-knitting, self-loathing bourgeois media are happy to get on their high horses about the likes of Robinson - a marginal, rather derided figure and not much of a threat to either the public peace or to any individual - but are always strangely silent  when it comes to Islamist and Jihadist hate preachers, many of whom can be found spewing their murderous garbage on street corners and outside mosques all over London most days of the week.

Jones and his ilk deeply dislike the concept of freedom of speech, for it can allow the propagation of non-approved ideas from the 'wrong' sort of people.

For the record, by the way, I support the right of the jihadists, Tommy Robinson and even Owen Jones to believe and say whatever they like, within the law (of course ).

 

Kevin-W posted:
rodwsmith posted:

"Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre"

Or indeed, any of the vile disgusting vitriol that serial-criminal Mr Yaxley-Lennon ('Tommy Robinson' is a self-appointed pseudonym) spouts.

This Owen Jones piece sums it up well (link to article in the guardian)

Actually Rod, freedom of speech DOES include the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre (it is just that there may be legal consequences for the shouter).

The late Christopher Hitchens is very good on this subject (Google is your friend); the great Hitch said of the original 1919 court case that produced this rather banal and overused analogy: "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." 

In any case, as someone else pointed out, this particular case is an issue about contempt of court, not freedom of speech.

As for Owen Jones, he is an arse and a colossal hypocrite, and that article is just the usual handwringing identitarian dribble we've come to expect from the 21st century Guardian. He and other members of the quinoa-knitting, self-loathing bourgeois media are happy to get on their high horses about the likes of Robinson - a marginal, rather derided figure and not much of a threat to either the public peace or to any individual - but are always strangely silent  when it comes to Islamist and Jihadist hate preachers, many of whom can be found spewing their murderous garbage on street corners and outside mosques all over London most days of the week.

Jones and his ilk deeply dislike the concept of freedom of speech, for it can allow the propagation of non-approved ideas from the 'wrong' sort of people.

For the record, by the way, I support the right of the jihadists, Tommy Robinson and even Owen Jones to believe and say whatever they like, within the law (of course ).

 

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.     

Hmack posted:
Kevin-W posted:
rodwsmith posted:

"Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre"

Or indeed, any of the vile disgusting vitriol that serial-criminal Mr Yaxley-Lennon ('Tommy Robinson' is a self-appointed pseudonym) spouts.

This Owen Jones piece sums it up well (link to article in the guardian)

Actually Rod, freedom of speech DOES include the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre (it is just that there may be legal consequences for the shouter).

The late Christopher Hitchens is very good on this subject (Google is your friend); the great Hitch said of the original 1919 court case that produced this rather banal and overused analogy: "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." 

In any case, as someone else pointed out, this particular case is an issue about contempt of court, not freedom of speech.

As for Owen Jones, he is an arse and a colossal hypocrite, and that article is just the usual handwringing identitarian dribble we've come to expect from the 21st century Guardian. He and other members of the quinoa-knitting, self-loathing bourgeois media are happy to get on their high horses about the likes of Robinson - a marginal, rather derided figure and not much of a threat to either the public peace or to any individual - but are always strangely silent  when it comes to Islamist and Jihadist hate preachers, many of whom can be found spewing their murderous garbage on street corners and outside mosques all over London most days of the week.

Jones and his ilk deeply dislike the concept of freedom of speech, for it can allow the propagation of non-approved ideas from the 'wrong' sort of people.

For the record, by the way, I support the right of the jihadists, Tommy Robinson and even Owen Jones to believe and say whatever they like, within the law (of course ).

 

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.

SNIP

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.

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 @Hmack - 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.   

     

 

Hmack posted:

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?

SNIP

I'm not sure if you simply misunderstood my post, or are deliberately misrepresenting what was written?

For the record, I made no reference to you stating anything about Kevin-W's right to Free Expression, nor your right to respond.

As for why I posted, please re-read what was written, noting the entire section from your post that I quoted.

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.  

Hmack posted:

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.  

My point was to question why you assert that Kevin-W is being disingenuous in his claim to support another person's right of Free Expression, simply because you think that what he has said in respect of that person is 'absolute rubbish', 'bile' etc., hence:

'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 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.     

 

Hmack:

I made (what I thought was) a simple, self-explanatory post regarding your 'Absolute Rubbish...' post about Kevin-W's 'Support the right of...' post, and I have further explained what I meant by it; at no point have I said anything about Tommy Robinson, but, for the second time, you have attempted to link my posts to what my views might be of him; Please stop misrepresenting what has been written, jumping to conclusions, and making unfounded implications.

My posts have, rather evidently I would say, been about the principle of supporting another person's right of Free Expression, while disagreeing with what they say, and/or disliking them (and specifically in this case, your assertion in respect of Kevin-W) - nothing more, nothing less.

 

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).

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.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×