It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: acackohfcc
What about freedom of thought? There are people I just don't like. If one of the happens to be Jewish, are you going to try and "make" me like them?
I'm an American. I'll hate anyone I feel like.


No one is challenging "freedom of thought". You can think what you like and no one will give a toss. The law tackles speech and material that inspires hate, so that goes beyond simply "thinking". The legal interpretation is very narrow in the UK.




posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

its illegal in Germany to do the nazi salute or shout their 'catch phrases'...

maybe your next thread should be how Germany is oppressive when it comes to free speech.
mentalist..


If Hitler came back he’d be extatic to find that his nonsense was still banned in Europe, just like when he has was in power. It would testify to the endurance and force of his nonsense. What he wouldn’t like is videos about Nazi pugs and himself as a big joke.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
When YouTuber “Count Dankula” uploaded an offensive video


People always whine about free speech. The thing is that there are social norms have been put into law, and these (in the UK at least) seek to curtail offensive and hate speech, particularly when it incites people to perpetuate hate. I can say what I like, but would be quite rightly challenged if I started to bang on about stuff that is socially unacceptable because it fuels hate.

My main point would be around self-publicising YouTube bloggers. Being a dick does not mean that your action are inoffensive, or should be exempt from what is categorised as offensive.


In unfree countries it isn’t so much whining as it is a matter of life and death. It’s how the homeless feel as they watch you throw out half of your filet mignon.

The “fuelling hate” Schlick is utter tripe. Weimar Germany had modern hate speech laws and Nazi magazines were banned and their editors jailed. A lot of good that did.
edit on 1-2-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

its illegal in Germany to do the nazi salute or shout their 'catch phrases'...

maybe your next thread should be how Germany is oppressive when it comes to free speech.
mentalist..


You really wanna live in a world where a YouTube video can get you arrested? Was he inciting violence?



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Used to be studying the past was good immunity , to keep from repeating it.

But now that we are 'officially' repeating it, the past is censored.

Not that you are aware of it, because whats being banned is 'stirring hatred' (I mean, awareness) how things go bad.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If a potential crime has been reported the police are compelled to investigate it.

An arrest will not be made without reasonable evidence to suggest a crime occurred.

I think a video will suffice as "evidence" and I'm fairly certain that this video was brought to the attention of the police.

This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has everything to do with the workings of law and order, the police did the right thing, that is to investigate a potential crime and act within their authority to ensure lawful and peaceful state if affairs within society.

I'm not offended by this video, I can't say that I've watched it... However I can only speak for myself and I cannot assume the inoffensiveness of the material. If I was a policeman and I took my job seriously then I'd be compelled to investigate, upon discovering material that is potentially unlawful I'd be compelled to investigate further to ensure a lawful conviction.

This has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with the law.

If this was about free speech then the video wouldn't even exist. But it did, he was free to make the video, he was free to post it to social media, when it comes to responsibility though he wasn't free... Non of us are.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Used to be studying the past was good immunity , to keep from repeating it.

But now that we are 'officially' repeating it, the past is censored.

Not that you are aware of it, because whats being banned is 'stirring hatred' (I mean, awareness) how things go bad.


Exactly right.

I’m worried about people who constantly refer to “stirring up hatred” or “inciting fear and hatred”, because it is obvious hate speech works on them. Personally I’m repelled by hate speech and hatred in general, but these guys must be getting turned on or something, stirred up and incited by it.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If a potential crime has been reported the police are compelled to investigate it.

An arrest will not be made without reasonable evidence to suggest a crime occurred.

I think a video will suffice as "evidence" and I'm fairly certain that this video was brought to the attention of the police.

This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has everything to do with the workings of law and order, the police did the right thing, that is to investigate a potential crime and act within their authority to ensure lawful and peaceful state if affairs within society.

I'm not offended by this video, I can't say that I've watched it... However I can only speak for myself and I cannot assume the inoffensiveness of the material. If I was a policeman and I took my job seriously then I'd be compelled to investigate, upon discovering material that is potentially unlawful I'd be compelled to investigate further to ensure a lawful conviction.

This has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with the law.

If this was about free speech then the video wouldn't even exist. But it did, he was free to make the video, he was free to post it to social media, when it comes to responsibility though he wasn't free... Non of us are.


An innocent man is arrested and is forced to spend time in the UK legal system for a joke. It is about free speech. Sorry.

Everything is offensive to someone, that’s the problem. The draconian law he is being prosecuted for:

“(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.”

Means the government gets to decide what is or isn’t offensive.
edit on 1-2-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Not at all, it's about somebody creating media content that was clearly offensive to somebody otherwise an investigation could never have been held.

I mean, I could "joke" about telling somebody to kill themselves day after day, my intention might literally be a joke. Doesn't absolve me of the crime I commited.

I'd be arrested and rightfully so.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Not at all, it's about somebody creating media content that was clearly offensive to somebody otherwise an investigation could never have been held.

I mean, I could "joke" about telling somebody to kill themselves day after day, my intention might literally be a joke. Doesn't absolve me of the crime I commited.

I'd be arrested and rightfully so.


What isn’t offensive to someone, and who gets to decide what is?



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh so the government are the courts now?

I'm guessing the courts police our streets too?




Means the government gets to decide what is or isn’t offensive. 


I wish it were that simple but it isn't, the law can define offenciveness about as much as the government can hand out convictions.

Again he posted the video, he created the video. Nobody forced him to do it, nobody could stop him from creating it. freedom of expression does not give you the right to absolve yourself of responsibility.

This idiot learned responsibility the hard way.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Have we ever lived in a free world?

We are free to do as we are told, that freedom is relative to the enforcer.

I'm fairly certain that western countries that have the rule of law are not even close to being free, offensive speech is simply the next target .



Offensive speech is already a target. And we dont get to decide what is offensive.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh so the government are the courts now?

I'm guessing the courts police our streets too?




Means the government gets to decide what is or isn’t offensive. 


I wish it were that simple but it isn't, the law can define offenciveness about as much as the government can hand out convictions.

Again he posted the video, he created the video. Nobody forced him to do it, nobody could stop him from creating it. freedom of expression does not give you the right to absolve yourself of responsibility.

This idiot learned responsibility the hard way.


Yes the separation of powers in the UK is debatable.

He learned it the authoritarian way. The UK used to jail sodomites, defining what is or isn’t acceptable, using the same arguments.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Not at all, it's about somebody creating media content that was clearly offensive to somebody otherwise an investigation could never have been held.

I mean, I could "joke" about telling somebody to kill themselves day after day, my intention might literally be a joke. Doesn't absolve me of the crime I commited.

I'd be arrested and rightfully so.


What isn’t offensive to someone, and who gets to decide what is?


No individual. I can't see how the law can define offensiveness within the minds of individuals.

It's a video, involving material relating to nazism. A lot can be assumed in such cases, we've got 50+ years in terms of convictions and material to study.

It's not like somebody became offended by Taylor Swift's hair colour so therefore shaved their head and now are looking for a lawful conviction and compensation for the detrimental affect this "offensiveness" had upon their life.

Even an idiot like me can understand how and why this material would be investigated. I'm actually glad it was. I'm not sure about the conviction but then I'm not fully informed nor have I watched the video.

Hate speech starts somewhere, it's not like Joe Bloggs woke up one day and decided to kill some Jews then make a nazi pug video.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

The issue isn’t whether the video is offensive, but whether making an offensive video should be criminalized by the government. The same goes for hate speech. With a history of blasphemy, obscenity, and sexual deviance laws, the government doesn’t have quite the best track record in these areas, and is always unjust in application.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Don't get me wrong I'm not exactly a fan of my government or quite a few of the laws it has enacted.

Once you've got a conviction against you then you've been tarred for life.

Fact.

Laws do not come from nowhere though, earlier you used the word sodomite. Do you not see how such words hold quite a few connotations?

It's not like the British public was outraged by the criminalisation of sexuality. In fact I'd argue such criminalisation was encouraged by the British public.

Often the smallest groups have the loudest voices.

I'm guessing 50 years ago nobody could come up with a logical or reasonable excuse to demonise same-sex relationships, nor could they give examples on how homosexuality has negatively impacted their quality of life.

I'm also guessing that most people (publicly) were against homosexuality.

It's something worth considering, since I can imagine 99/100 people wouldn't find offence by this video. But somebody did... Upon investigation the authorities obviously found material worthy of further investigation and a subsequent conviction.

You're blaming my government, me?

I realise it is never that simple. I realise that homosexuality was a crime because people deemed it as such, the public's consensus wasn't based upon a tyrannical government but rather history, society religion and culture.

Now I'll ask you this, do you blame governments for this whole "I'm offended" state of affairs across the world?

Or do you believe that governments work on an order of consensus and that convictions related to hate speech are on a upward trend because the people want it to be?

Because I believe that 60 years ago people were convicted on the grounds of homosexuality because the public generally consented to the fact that homosexuality isn't normal and therefore an offence.

Being offended isn't a new phenomena, homosexuality wasn't new 50-100 years ago. The subsequent laws associated with offense and sexuality are not new either, nor is the history of how and why these laws exist either.

I think you're giving the government far too much credit tbh



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RAY1990

The issue isn’t whether the video is offensive, but whether making an offensive video should be criminalized by the government. The same goes for hate speech. With a history of blasphemy, obscenity, and sexual deviance laws, the government doesn’t have quite the best track record in these areas, and is always unjust in application.


As you point out we used to have more laws (as did pretty much everywhere) restricting free speech. Protection of freedom of speech is now higher than at any point before.

The internet throws up more challenges and along the way some bad decisions have and will continue to be made.

However that doesn't mean that all laws on what people can say without consequences are bad ones. They exist for very valid reasons.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

A very good point. In fact I suspect that the government was a head of the curve in the case of legalising homosexual acts as at the point they did it would still be viewed very negatively by the majority of the public.

Similarly with free speech where government and the courts have generally afforded more protection than I suspect would be given by the general public.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990




Now I'll ask you this, do you blame governments for this whole "I'm offended" state of affairs across the world?


Not at all. In liberal democracies at least, the government has become the better protectors of free speech than the people they govern. Free speech is found in the charters and constitutions of many countries, and the UN, and for good reason. Orwell wrote about this in his preface to Animal Farm, and I am in agreement:

"Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves."

- Orwell, Freedom of the Press




Or do you believe that governments work on an order of consensus and that convictions related to hate speech are on a upward trend because the people want it to be?


Nowadays, I believe that the governments work more on an order of public relations and dogma than consensus. The favourable dogma, just from judging by the terminology used, is that evil words beget evil deeds, which simply isn't the case.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I think posting something like this on YouTube should be punished, and people should realise the difference between a extremely bad taste joke that one or two people see/hear compared to a YouTube video that millions could possibly see is very different.
The internet has created a hornets nest of propaganda and hate videos from every corner of the globe, and something should be done to limit this kind of rubbish from ever reaching a possible massive audience on the internet. From isis propaganda vids to racist or offensive videos, a line needs to be drawn as to what is civil and acceptable to society.

Freedom is fought for, and people have a right to "feel" free but how far does that freedom allow you go/say? What is free in this corporate and big company controlled world? I I'm not free to kill my neighbour because they looked at me wrong, I'm not free to decide that my garden needs to be 50ft bigger at the expense of my neighbours garden, I'm not free to decide that I don't want to pay for my shopping any longer, freedom is limited to societies idea of what freedom is.




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join