Freedom of speech

[papasmurf]

Pure freedom of speech would.

I go with the John Stuart Mill philosophy on this.  Would the harm of the speech be higher than the harm of not allowing it to be freely made.  If so then a legal restriction or censure is not unreasonable.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Freedom of speech does not stop people being sued when they spout lies and propaganda.

Pure freedom of speech would.

I go with the John Stuart Mill philosophy on this.  Would the harm of the speech be higher than the harm of not allowing it to be freely made.  If so then a legal restriction or censure is not unreasonable.

[papasmurf]

Freedom of speech does not stop people being sued when they spout lies and propaganda.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Good point, U4S.
Article 10 giveth and Article 10 taketh away. The practical result is no protection of Freedom of Speech.
Clause 2 virtually cancels Clause 1.

Not really.  Any law that restricts speech but doesn't meet the criteria of clause 2 and especially the 'necessary' criteria would be struck down by our Supreme Court and if not by the ECtHR.

Which restrictions on free speech/expression are you particularly concerned about?

[Barry]

Good point, U4S.
Article 10 giveth and Article 10 taketh away. The practical result is no protection of Freedom of Speech.
Clause 2 virtually cancels Clause 1.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Freedom of speech is not protected in England and Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
There is nothing, as far as I know, which enshrines "Freedom of speech" into law. . . .

Reasonable freedom of speech is protected in law by the Human Rights Act and the European Convention (article 10 of both)

Article 10

Freedom of expression

1  Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2  The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[cromwell]

The above post encapsulates all that is going wrong,what the speaker said on this issue I find more than worrying

There is a massive difference between rioting looting etc and having a cntreversial opinion.

There should be some sort of law that protects freedom of speech which is being eroded day by day imo.

I always remember when I was young so many would say of the extreme opinions,"I oppose what you say and believe with every breath though I would fight with every breath your right to hold them.

[Barry]

There have been those jailed recently for saying things that might be offensive or distasteful,as long as they're not inciting violence or harassing an individual then it shouldn't mean jail time should it?

There was a woman recently who carried a placard on a Palestine protest that depicted Sunak and a Braverman as coconuts and I guess most understand the meaning.

Anyway the case was dismissed because she claimed political banter,ok but it begs the question why there are others in jail?

https://news.sky.com/story/teacher-cleared-over-coconut-placard-of-sunak-and-braverman-at-protest-13214107

Freedom of speech is not protected in England and Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
There is nothing, as far as I know, which enshrines "Freedom of speech" into law.
What we do have, though, are a plethora of laws, many of which have been recently updated or enacted, some open to wide interpretation. That wide interpretation is likely to make anyone posting on any social media very wary about what they post and how it might be interpreted.

Therefore, if there ever was a feeling of freedom of speech in this country, it is being eroded by the police taking too wide interpretations of the law. This is always in my mind whenever I post on forums. I have recently deleted every like and post on "X" and now use it to read only.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Tomlinson's killing was appalling, clear evidence of police corruption but is nothing to do with the question posed.

[cromwell]

If you see a riot then a sensible person leaves the area, to stay is to encourage. As phrased that judges comments look sus but I'd want to see the whole text.  Especially as we know that at the later hearing more disturbing accounts of the accused's behaviour emerged.

I don't see this case as some examplar of freedom of speech restriction.

As far as that in bold and the fact this happened 15 years ago being irrelevant anyone can be a casual observer,this man was.

https://youtu.be/HECMVdl-9SQ?feature=shared

[Unlucky4Sum]

Do you have other cases?

[cromwell]

If you see a riot then a sensible person leaves the area, to stay is to encourage.  As phrased that judges comments look sus but I'd want to see the whole text.  Especially as we know that at the later hearing more disturbing accounts of the accused's behaviour emerged.

I don't see this case as some examplar of freedom of speech restriction.

That particular individual doesn't matter,it's what the judge says that does

[Unlucky4Sum]

If you see a riot then a sensible person leaves the area, to stay is to encourage.  As phrased that judges comments look sus but I'd want to see the whole text.  Especially as we know that at the later hearing more disturbing accounts of the accused's behaviour emerged.

I don't see this case as some examplar of freedom of speech restriction. 

[cromwell]

And you said he was jailed for merely being nosey.  Well he hasn't even been convicted yet and is on bail.

So the original challenge was 'Well those that called for violence or hate to be vested on others deserve to be in jail.  Have you any examples of any that are in jail for milder comments?'

Do you?

I didn't say he was jailed for being nosey read back I actually pointed to the judges words which I think disgusting,don't you?

Anybody involving themselves in this type of behavior, this type of disorder, as an active participant or a curious observer can expect to be, save for the most exceptional circumstances, remanded into custody, and this defendant is remanded into custody."

To that in bold do you really think that's ok?

[Unlucky4Sum]

And you said he was jailed for merely being nosey.  Well he hasn't even been convicted yet and is on bail.

So the original challenge was 'Well those that called for violence or hate to be vested on others deserve to be in jail.  Have you any examples of any that are in jail for milder comments?'

Do you?