Freedom of Speech and of Thought Being Destroyed

[Nick]

But start with the principle.  Some forms of free speech are harmful enough to not be lawful.

Then decide how to make laws on such and judge cases.

That's the point where free speech changes to hate speech. 

[Borg Refinery]

But start with the principle.  Some forms of free speech are harmful enough to not be lawful.

Then decide how to make laws on such and judge cases.

The fact is that things like 'posting false information' online as determined by an arbitrary fact checker or judge somewhere with no expertise in the matter shouldn't be illegal or prevented, posting something like a bomb threat is a different matter or accusing someone of being a terrorist is a rather defamatory false accusation - but that's why they sue people so often here

[Unlucky4Sum]

The problem is that some people see "false testimony", incitement, threats and harassment as anything they don't like

One could argue the current transgender books being thrown in kids faces in schools and at libraries is child pornography, books detailing graphic sexual acts performed by children on children. I've never approved of that, but the state seems to think it's a wonderous idea both here and in Enger-laynd

But start with the principle.  Some forms of free speech are harmful enough to not be lawful.

Then decide how to make laws on such and judge cases.

[Borg Refinery]

False testimony, incitement, threats, extreme/child pornography and harassment are the ones that first come to mind

The problem is that some people see "false testimony", incitement, threats and harassment as anything they don't like

One could argue the current transgender books being thrown in kids faces in schools and at libraries is child pornography, books detailing graphic sexual acts performed by children on children. I've never approved of that, but the state seems to think it's a wonderous idea both here and in Enger-laynd

[Unlucky4Sum]

"Silence is not criminal"

is not the same as

"silence means no criminality".

Agreed but that's not what they said

[Unlucky4Sum]

And what are the "worst excesses of free speech"? . . 

False testimony, incitement, threats, extreme/child pornography and harassment are the ones that first come to mind 

[patman post]

I still don't understand how you would describe a silent protest.  Do you often go to Parliament Square and sit in front of people silently sitting down, and read their lips?  🤔

I pass by, may be once or twice a week, and I've seen single people and groups holding placards, waving flags, shouting, etc, and I can't say that I've noticed any individual there stationary and praying — but then, I admit, I wasn't looking for them.

However, as each morning's session of parliament begins with prayers, I doubt MPs and staff would find external praying onlookers that intimidating, even if some bills are occasionally aborted.

Permission from the Met must be had for any protests or demonstrations within a 1km radius of Parliament Square — and police or authorised officers can direct people to stop anything judged to be a protest that's not been applied for...

[Borg Refinery]

As you know, active and retired servicemen in the U.S. are treated like royalty, to the extent they get priority at airports. How does holding placards at Brize Norton or wherever not classed as hate speech?

Indeed, it's treated as a crime in England, whereas in the USA you are free to do it regardless of how much people may hate you for it.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/03/thank-god-for-dead-soldiers-vs-british-soldiers-go-to-hell/

A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, in which it upheld the rights of a radical anti-gay Christian group to protest at military funerals, provides a useful opportunity to compare free speech protections here to those provided over the pond.
[..] The picketers peacefully displayed their signs—stating, for example, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Fags Doom Nations," "America is Doomed," "Priests Rape Boys," and "You're Going to Hell"—for about 30 minutes before the funeral began. [..]
Go compare

How does this compare with our own recent decision (see Isabel McArdle's post), in which the High Court ruled that the criminal prosecution of a group of people who had shouted slogans, including, "burn in hell", "baby killers" and "rapists" at a parade of British soldiers, was not a breach of their right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

The first thing to say is that the cases are not directly comparable. The jurisdictions are significantly different and the protecting instruments – the Constitution there and the Human Rights Act here – are quite different too. Moreover, the US case involved a civil action against the protesters where as the UK case concerned a criminal prosecution under hate speech rules. And factually the cases were different, particularly in relation to the proximity of the protesters to the people being protested against.

But, notwithstanding that lawerly proviso, the similarities are illuminating. Both cases involved the emotive issue of what most of society would consider unsavoury radicals chanting hate slogans aimed at soldiers.

In the UK case, five men were convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

In that case, as in the US case, the protesters met with police beforehand and management of the protest was discussed. On the day, the protesters shouted "British soldiers go to hell", "terrorists" and "cowards". The men were arrested on the following day, on the basis of video footage of the protest.

They argued that they had complied with directions from the police and there was no evidence the police warned them to cease chanting the slogans. But, as the court ruled:

...dialogue [with police] can only help to reduce the risk of untoward events but it cannot guarantee in advance that the words and conduct of protesters will not contravene the law.

Moreover,

If the line between legitimate freedom of expression and a threat to public order has indeed been crossed, freedom of speech will not have been impaired by "ruling ...out" threatening, abusive or insulting speech.

Therein lies the difference. The simple fact is that although our freedom of expression is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention, that article is subject to a number of qualifications, and as such can be restricted in the interest of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime. The UK government has decided to restrict political expression with criminal laws against hate speech. And the exercise of this law is generally considered by the courts to be compliant with Article 10.

This means that free speech here is far more constrained than in the United States, where even "hate speech" is generally protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution (see my post on the Congressman Giffords shooting).
In the US, there remains only a very limited list of forms of expression which are not protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, child pornography, speech that incites imminent danger, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Although the United States does have laws against hate speech, as compared to the relatively low bar of the "likely to cause" English test, in the US speech must incite imminent violence. This is difficult to prove and as such has led to few successful prosecutions.

There's no comparison between the protections in English law vis a vis American laws when it comes to freedom of expression.

I can see how it's very distressing to picket funerals and is very morally wrong, but I can also see how US constitution means it must be protected freedom of expression

That doesn't mean people can't counter-protest, although I expect that would upset the mourners even more..

[Nick]

And what are the "worst excesses of free speech"?

Let me point something out to you, here you are allowed to picket the funerals of dead soldiers with placards saying "Thank *** for dead soldiers" and "*** hates fags* and things like that as Fred Phelps' WBC did.

Things are not the same AT ALL in England when it comes to free speech.

As you know, active and retired servicemen in the U.S. are treated like royalty, to the extent they get priority at airports. How does holding placards at Brize Norton or wherever not classed as hate speech?

[Scott777]

Because those posts in effect asserted that silent comminication should never be criminal

"Silence is not criminal" 

is not the same as

"silence means no criminality".

[Scott777]

I agree she shouldn't have been arrested but that doesn't make her actions good.  IMHO anything but so.

This is the most important point, and we can agree on that.  😉

[Borg Refinery]

Don't be absurd. 

Restricting the worst excesses of 'speech' is a good thing and as is bleeding obvious, not wanting the UK to copy everything about the USA does not mean I want it to be 100% the opposite of the USA.

And what are the "worst excesses of free speech"?

Let me point something out to you, here you are allowed to picket the funerals of dead soldiers with placards saying "Thank *** for dead soldiers" and "*** hates fags* and things like that as Fred Phelps' WBC did.

Things are not the same AT ALL in England when it comes to free speech.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Excellent, so because we have messed up laws England should follow suit. Weren't you saying you didn't want England to resemble America?

Don't be absurd.  

Restricting the worst excesses of 'speech' is a good thing and as is bleeding obvious, not wanting the UK to copy everything about the USA does not mean I want it to be 100% the opposite of the USA.

[Borg Refinery]

The Supreme Court goes way back before those guys. 

You have laws on libel, child pornography etc and the Brandenburg v Ohio case in 1969 established that speech likely to result in imminent lawless action was not protected by the 1st amendment.

Excellent, so because we have messed up laws England should follow suit. Weren't you saying you didn't want England to resemble America?

[Unlucky4Sum]

The Supreme Court goes way back before those guys.  

You have laws on libel, child pornography etc and the Brandenburg v Ohio case in 1969 established that speech likely to result in imminent lawless action was not protected by the 1st amendment.