UK and freedom of speech?

[lovbyts]

Do I understand correctly there is no freedom of speech in the UK? I have read a few reports recently of people being arrested for posting something online. Not a threat, not something that caused someone else to do bodily harm but something that offended someone else.

Recently there was a guy arrested for a facebook post he made. It took some searching but I finally found it. Yes it was in bad taste, it was poor humor and poor timing on his part but should he be arrested over it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-19863228

From what I understand it was someone else who saw the post who sent it to or posted it on the website of the missing girl and this is what got things out of hand.

I dont think we are far behind the UK on loosing or 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech especially with the recent arrest of the guy who made that stupid anti Muslim film that supposedly got everyone all stired up and they have tried to blame the killing of the US diplomat and others on the film.

I read a lot of comments on this article and it seems there are a lot of people who do not agree with the whole process and the guys arrest. Even people saying this is one of the key reasons why the US separated ourselves from England although we seem to be going down the same path.

[Flagg]

Of course there is freedom of speech, just that in this country, hate crime or hate speech that can potentially incite violence is a criminal offence.

Lately there's been a lot of hoo-har, regarding footballers no less, on what can and cant be said. One footballer collapsed during a football game and someone on Twitter started postiong stuff about how funny it was, especially when said player was black as well, and how it would be funny if he died, etc. I think the family of the footballer took offence to it and the boy was arrested and given a small custodial sentence, something like 30 days.

There is also the thing about whether the press should be regulated by an independent body rather than self regulation. Now, no one in this country is for censorship, but simply put, newspapers in this country cannot be trusted anymore. There's been a huge scandal here over Rupert Murdoch and the ethics of his newspapers. The Sun and The News of the World have flat out been caught hacking into peoples phones over here. Most of it was celebrities but the worst was a few years ago, a girl went missing (Milly Dowler). The News of the World HACKED into this missing girls phone and was reading text messages. The family took this as a sign that it was Milly alive that was reading the messages. And of course, the girl was dead by this point.

So yes, in the case of newspapers I do think they need to be regulated now by an independent body because they clearly dont give a damn about anyone elses rights and will be the first to complain about theirs, when all they want to do is print hateful smear in the tabloids.

EDIT: As for the guy who's posted that vile stuff about that missing 5 year old girl, **** him. There is a world of difference with freedom of speech and hate speech. We've taken a heavier stance on people attempting to abuse their right of speech. Take these muslim clerics that get on their soap boxes, proclaiming death to the West and claiming on our benefit system. Well now we can arrest them under suspicion of inciting terrorism.

Lets be serious here, democracy is probably the best system there is, but not without it's flaws. I dont believe people should be allowed to incite hatred, spread hatred, or be allowed to laugh at people that are missing or dead. We are talking about peoples lives here, not some pathetic human beings right to be a prick.

[songdog]

Of course there is freedom of speech, just that in this country, hate crime or hate speech that can potentially incite violence is a criminal offence.

Lately there's been a lot of hoo-har, regarding footballers no less, on what can and cant be said. One footballer collapsed during a football game and someone on Twitter started postiong stuff about how funny it was, especially when said player was black as well, and how it would be funny if he died, etc. I think the family of the footballer took offence to it and the boy was arrested and given a small custodial sentence, something like 30 days.

There is also the thing about whether the press should be regulated by an independent body rather than self regulation. Now, no one in this country is for censorship, but simply put, newspapers in this country cannot be trusted anymore. There's been a huge scandal here over Rupert Murdoch and the ethics of his newspapers. The Sun and The News of the World have flat out been caught hacking into peoples phones over here. Most of it was celebrities but the worst was a few years ago, a girl went missing (Milly Dowler). The News of the World HACKED into this missing girls phone and was reading text messages. The family took this as a sign that it was Milly alive that was reading the messages. And of course, the girl was dead by this point.

So yes, in the case of newspapers I do think they need to be regulated now by an independent body because they clearly dont give a damn about anyone elses rights and will be the first to complain about theirs, when all they want to do is print hateful smear in the tabloids.

EDIT: As for the guy who's posted that vile stuff about that missing 5 year old girl, **** him. There is a world of difference with freedom of speech and hate speech. We've taken a heavier stance on people attempting to abuse their right of speech. Take these muslim clerics that get on their soap boxes, proclaiming death to the West and claiming on our benefit system. Well now we can arrest them under suspicion of inciting terrorism.

Lets be serious here, democracy is probably the best system there is, but not without it's flaws. I dont believe people should be allowed to incite hatred, spread hatred, or be allowed to laugh at people that are missing or dead. We are talking about peoples lives here, not some pathetic human beings right to be a prick.

We need something like that over here.The press always lies to push their agenda.

[lovbyts]

We need something like that over here.The press always lies to push their agenda.

This would not affect the media/press in any way.

[Flagg]

To cut a long story short, yes, inciting hatred is illegal in this country:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5

From the British Public Order Act 1986:
Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F1a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

I'm not voting on that poll because I get the impression it's a slightly rabble rousing thing: "Are you for freedom of speech or THE MAN STOPPING YOU from freedom of speech". It's not as simple as that.

And by the way, not all Hate Speech is protected under your first amendment in America if said hate speech leads to rioting, defamation or fighting, plus your Civil Rights Act 1964 protects people from hateful speech within the work place.

Just seems to me, the only people that have a problem with hate speech being punished are those that think hate speech is alright or funny.

[lovbyts]

Its the term insulting I have issue with. This is way to broad. Most anyone can be insulted by something if they let it and then you are guilty. What if I'm offended because you are wearing an American, British, English, Irish or xxx flag on your shirt? What if I'm offended by your Tattoo? What if you are a comedian and you joke about short people and I'm short so I take offense to it? I think it's a slippery slope.

Just like this guy who was arrested due to his Facebook post. He was arrested before the little girls accused killer even though they knew who it was and it sounds like this got as much if not more publicity all due to a poor taste of a joke. It was not threatening in any way or abusive. I'm quite sure the parents and others were offended by it though although there were never intended to see it.

[Flagg]

Its the term insulting I have issue with. This is way to broad. Most anyone can be insulted by something if they let it and then you are guilty. What if I'm offended because you are wearing an American, British, English, Irish or xxx flag on your shirt? What if I'm offended by your Tattoo? What if you are a comedian and you joke about short people and I'm short so I take offense to it? I think it's a slippery slope.

Just like this guy who was arrested due to his Facebook post. He was arrested before the little girls accused killer even though they knew who it was and it sounds like this got as much if not more publicity all due to a poor taste of a joke. It was not threatening in any way or abusive. I'm quite sure the parents and others were offended by it though although there were never intended to see it.

There is a difference between being offended by a tshirt with a national flag on it and someone racially abusing another on a train or making a joke about a missing, likely dead now, 5 year old girl. It's not threatening, but it's damn offensive and it has huge potential for violent retaliation.

People seem to think it's funny to be a hate filled troll and not think there are consequences for such actions. This board, for instance, is not democratic. Would you come here if people were allowed to racially abuse staff members, or be homophobic, or make jokes about dead people?

Hate speech is illegal in many countries around the world including Australia and Canada.

In this country, we'd have prosecuted the Phelps families for their vile diatribes ages ago. But hey, we must be a socialist state, three rungs below full blown facism for that, right?

[Flagg]

One day, if it hasn't happened already, a relative of a soldier is going to retaliate against the Phelps family. And what will happen, he/she will be arrested and prosecuted for it.

[lovbyts]

OH those clowns. Yeah it's morons like that who put the whole 1st amendment at risk. I agree there needs to be some type of guideline but arresting someone for a bad joke is way to much or making an ignorant or even racial statement especially if there is not history of it and they are not part of some anti this or that hate group like the KKK or whatever.

[spywizard]

wow.. so in the UK.. there is no freedom of speech..

the 1st amendment in the USA was set forth to insure that people can speak out and protest against the USA Government..

I can expand on that opinion/observation..

Under Muslim law, the Government is Muslim and thus subject to the religious ruling class, and since the UK is ??? % Muslim???? and thus anything said against a religious group is thus against the Government, it's against that 1986 law..

is that pretty close to a correct interpretation??

[Flagg]

wow.. so in the UK.. there is no freedom of speech..

the 1st amendment in the USA was set forth to insure that people can speak out and protest against the USA Government..

I can expand on that opinion/observation..

Under Muslim law, the Government is Muslim and thus subject to the religious ruling class, and since the UK is ??? % Muslim???? and thus anything said against a religious group is thus against the Government, it's against that 1986 law..

is that pretty close to a correct interpretation??

Yeah that's right, we're just a bunch of communists. I swear, with all due respect, I sometimes wonder if America knows what goes on in the world outside their little sphere.

Of course there is freedom of speech. We just dont condone hate speech that incites violence, terrorism or harassment. Excuse me while I go ask my local MP if I can take these manacles off now.