Free Speech Be Damned!

So , over here in the UK we dont have a constitution and thus no protection on free speech.

A white-supremacist podcast host is to be sentenced after stirring up racial hatred on his “vile” show Radio Aryan.

James Allchurch, 51, from Pembrokeshire, Wales, was convicted by a jury in March following a trial at Swansea Civic Centre.


Now I am not purposefully striding out to bat for the Nazis here, its just that this case caught my eye.

Essentially a disabled bloke, running a podcast for right wing loons from his bedroom... Is it really in the national interest to shut him up?
And is it really about saying nasty things about ethnics that he is being gaoled? Or is it because TPTB dont like him shining a light on where their policies have made life worse for people? Think of the Muslim grooming gangs in big cities up north.

Sauce

a reply to: SprocketUK

True, there's no constitution (in the traditional sense), but the UK is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which contains Article 19:

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

UN Website

We should all stand up for free speech even if we dislike what is being said with it.

Sticks and Stones used to be the case back in the day and yet now it's "Words are violence" ... Utter nonsense

a reply to: SprocketUK

So, I have a odd take on most things. Free speech is free speech. If someone commits a crime then punish them.

There will always be people that think differently and may have bigoted opinions. It is their right to have them. Could be based on experience or teaching, doesn't matter.

We don't all have to like everyone around us, but those around us we don't like also don't have to push their beliefs on others.

Live and let live....it is when you force something that you get resistance.

If we didn't have instant communications, nobody would have a clue, nor give a crap.

I could go on for pages, but hope what I have said is enough to suffice.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
So , over here in the UK we dont have a constitution and thus no protection on free speech.

The UK does have a constitution. It's not conventionally codified, but it exists in various principles and statutes et al.

To your main point. I think that so-called "hate crimes" are a problem with curtailing freedom of speech. It is worrying that public institutions - such as universities - can cancel people, or individuals can be hounded and interviewed by the police for e.g. stating biological facts, just because it offends some la-la-man-in-a-skirt.

The person you reference - James Allchurch - was actually found guilty of inciting racial hatred, which most people would agree is stepping over a boundary.

Grooming gangs, and the recent controversy, just shows how far some political and media echo chambers will go to close down legitimate public concern.

a reply to: AllAnIllusion

but the UK is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which contains Article 19:

"Just words , just speeches ."

a reply to: SprocketUK

its in our all interest because its another brick in the wall. just check all these hate crimes and where this lunatics get their infos from… from the internet.

Freedom of speech is long dead, even in America.

The moment you speak out against the current thing, you'll be beaten, stabbed, shot, and deep fried... before you get sued for hate speech.

originally posted by: malte85
a reply to: SprocketUK

its in our all interest because its another brick in the wall. just check all these hate crimes and where this lunatics get their infos from… from the internet.

The problem is we might not agree with your assessments because you and your people are the haters. Not sayin you just stating how this is working. The haters are calling good people haters. The facts are just bad sometimes and they have to be stated clearly and sometimes even loudly. BUT, violence is not words EVER, EVER!

Violence is well defined and it isn't words.

a reply to: SprocketUK

In the United States, we don't have a viable constitution either. Welcome to the New World Order.

Over here, the insane are running the asylum these days.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: malte85
a reply to: SprocketUK

its in our all interest because its another brick in the wall. just check all these hate crimes and where this lunatics get their infos from… from the internet.

The problem is we might not agree with your assessments because you and your people are the haters. Not sayin you just stating how this is working. The haters are calling good people haters. The facts are just bad sometimes and they have to be stated clearly and sometimes even loudly. BUT, violence is not words EVER, EVER!

Violence is well defined and it isn't words.

maybe you should watch some hitlers speeches. or check out anders breivik. teach yourself and dont call me a hater, i hate no one but i disagree with racists, facists, sadists in general and i fight these people with words. but when a neonazi lay on the street bleeding i would help him without any doubt.

a reply to: SprocketUK

The children must recall your ancestors and the Holy Spirit that moved them to survive and thrive.

Cavemen versus astronauts? Dragon slayers.
Godspeed.

We have a Constitution in the UK it's just not codified in one document (which has a lot of positives and negatives) - UK and EU HRA Articles protect freedom of expression, freedom of belief etc.

While his views/comments are objectionable no one is being forced to listen to them and while he had guests who have been convicted of terror offences there's no mention of him personally inciting terrorism (IIRC inciting racial/religious hatred is a far less severe charge than inciting actual terror attacks).

I've counter-protested against BNP, NA, C18, NS 131, NWI and similar but this seems a dodgy ruling and pretty crazy the judge has told him to expect an immediate lengthy sentence when violent offenders, repeat offenders, even rapists and people found with child porn are given suspended sentences.

Just my subjective views... But it seems to me that freedom of speech has, over the past several years, become entangled with a vague notion of being obligated to platform any and all speech. Moreover, that the freedom to say things somehow comes with the ability to avoid repercussions or push back from others.

This has never been the case in practice.

Further, there also seems to be a misunderstand of the Constitutional concept of Freedom of Speech to begin with.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech/

Not Twitter. Not Facebook. Not your aunt Marge who doesn't like political talk at the dinner table on holidays... Congress.

That said...

I am free to walk into a Target and to begin telling every single person who'll listen that Walmart has lower prices. However Target will quickly disabuse me of the notion that I am free to do so on their property.

They will ask me to leave - within their legal right to do so.

I am free to walk into a Courtroom and call the Judge foul names. For what it's worth during my divorce I did exactly that. I was free to say it. But then I had to serve 8 days in jail for Contempt and pay $1,500.00 to get the Judge to decide that we were even.

My words, freely spoken, had consequences - but I was free to say them.

No private entity is legally required to platform or provide an audience for any persons speech. Nor are we, as individuals required to listen to speech ( in any form, spoken, written or recorded ) that we personally find offensive, rude, obscene, insulting or just don't care to give time to.

In regard to this specific case? Honestly not my country so not my business. I disagree with jailing anyone for what they say - with a couple of caveats ( incitement to violence, causing terror... The old "fire in a crowded theater" thing ). That said, not going to lose any sleep over a Nazi FAFOing.

The UK isn't just anti-free speech, they are now anti-free thought.

A woman has been arrested twice for standing, bothering no one, and silently praying in public.

The police approached her (on 2 different occasions), she was standing within sight range of an abortion clinic. She was bothering no one, just standing there, praying silently with no sign, no outward indication of what she was doing. The police in the UK asked her if she was praying. She said yes, and was arrested for praying about the abortion clinic, twice. www.foxnews.com...

Sad thing is liberals when I was young were pro-free speech. It is now liberals who control the UK government and liberals control the US government right now. Biden, a far left liberal, has appointed other liberals as heads of, to control, every aspect of the un-elected government.

In the past liberals fought hard for free speech, anti-war speech, pro-porn, anti-government speech. They said no speech was too vile to not be protected by the free speech clause. I clearly remember that because my boyfriend in the early 70's in college, was a radical liberal. Now liberals, in the US at least, are against any and all free speech which disagrees even the tiniest bit, with liberal ideology, Democratic Party policies, liberal doctrine and their latest morality of the day.

Anti-freedom of thought may soon be coming to the US I fear because the constitution guarantees freedom of speech but not freedom of thought.

Biden's DHS is probably working on that now
since Biden's DHS put in writing that anyone who
goes to church
volunteers to help the underprivileged
is concerned about modern day human trafficking (SLAVERY)
concerned about helping "other people's" children
is probably a domestic terrorist
according to their latest internal memo that was exposed.
(see another thread on this issue www.abovetopsecret.com...)

a reply to: SprocketUK

Free speech is about supporting the right of the person to say something you don't agree with. This does not abrogate the speaker's ability to suffer consequences of their comments such as ostracization or counter commentary.

I am very interested in this topic. Not so much because I have any qualifications or professional interest in such things, but because I'm genuinely intrigued by the differences made manifest between the United Kingdom, and the United States.

I understand the basics; that while Americans have a written constitution to delineate limits and ranges of government authorities (and that alone is what the courts must protect,) in the UK it is your Parliament that sets the marching orders for your legal system and thus whatever consensus prevails becomes operative law of the land. I grant that such an understanding may be wrong ... I'm American after all and so the nuances of your legal system and rights in the UK are only from what I have been able to observe - never knowing that what I'm observing might not be authoritative, or might even simply be grotesquely wrong.

It seems unusual from an American perspective to consider that you treat certain hate speech with such vehement hatred that you would destroy a person's life for speaking a hateful mindset... I would think the 'reveal' alone would have enough consequences to make further theater and exposure unnecessary.

Whereas in the US (most generally speaking) such speech itself cannot be "the object" punished unless it actually causes direct harm... and most specifically not that it "might" cause harm... it must actual do so to be a punishable offense.... in theory. We know that is often not practically true, we see it all the time in the arena of social affairs that many would welcome those speaking hatefully about 'certain people' being punished directly as a matter of "social justice."

I am not well informed enough about the psychology of human conduct to explain my own biases. But I can say that feel social justice deserves more scrutiny... it is often applied more as a matter of virtue signalling than it is as a remedy for an offense. And where their is passionate or systemic virtue signalling I often sense (rightly or perhaps wrongly) that there is an underlying problem with the signaler... their intentions, and the drive to make a righteous sound at someone else's expense.

In my mind, for a crime to exist their must be a victim. And the victim can't be a notional, theoretical, non-specific concept. It must be concrete, identifiable, quantifiable and most importantly have weight and form in reality...

This person, obviously negatively triggered by social changes regarding immigrants (who I suppose are culturally non-indigenous and Semitic) has fallen into the 'activist' trap... where passion and obsession about a subject makes the speaker caustic and persistent. Your societies' response is to lock him away... and while that is your prerogative, it certainly fails as a remedy in my opinion with the sole exception of making some people feel 'good.' You haven't really done anything but remove unpleasantness that ostensibly no one you care about was really listening to anyway. Eliminating the speaker doesn't eliminate the message.

Perhaps that is all well and good for today... until the consensus changes to another topic. What will someone not be able to say tomorrow? When will that evolve and into what? Might it never be that it is more about who is doing the proscription against whatever speech they dislike... or doesn't that matter (not meant facetiously?)

Please forgive me if I have made some cultural observation in a grossly objectionable way.... it was not my intent, and I only offer the excuse that I am not a subject of the realm, and thus lack your understanding of context.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yup, I'm against the no-platform policy a lot of organisations and authorities call for in the UK. Allowing to speak freely exposes how laughable and backwards their views are.

Silencing it gives it a false sense of legitimacy and plays directly into the griefolympics/desperate to feel like a victim audience such groups are aiming for.

As if banning or cancelling has ever changed a speaker's mind. It just pushes it underground. On top if one sine has only a little foothold ober the others rhey use it not to protect people from mean words but solely to shut up opposing views.

Look at Trudope saying that misinformation is harmful.
Yeah, it depends on what he considers misinformation.
I still maintain that letting people know about the very real dangers the forced mRNA injection has on a body, would have saved many lives, but the politicians don't care about that.

Their misinformation is allowed.
Which is the problem. Who ever is up there decides, but it has to do with schemes and plans, not care or safety.

Say what you want, but don't incite active violence. That would be free speech.
Nutters exist in every belief system, they always have, always will and always find each other. At least when they have a platform you can give them a different viewpoint. Or just ignore them.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Essentially a disabled bloke, running a podcast for right wing loons from his bedroom... Is it really in the national interest to shut him up?

Good question. A question I have is a non-crime hate incident considered to have no teeth, or is this actually hate baiting which ultimately leads to anger, rage and violence?

My stance is this -

Any restrictions on hate speech should not be misused to silence minorities and to suppress criticism of official policies, political opposition or religious beliefs.

Are these far-right extremist groups with or without radio stations (like Radio Albion as per the OP's topic) really trying to stir up violence? Well, I looked around Radio Albion and the chit chat I saw was equal to ATS' transphobic posts here. My first impression of the posts is fear-based and questioning 'what ifs'.

I don't know what speech made the authorities arrest this guy, but I'd like to listen to it to see if it was truly 'vile' as described.

Edit to Add:

Nationalism is a creed based upon love for one’s own people group or nation and a desire to preserve that people group and for it to thrive. The word ‘Nationalist’ is derived from the Latin ‘Natal’ which means ‘Birth’, thus we affirm that a Nation is a people connected by birth, an extended family united through their ancestry and a Nationalist is an individual who puts the well being of their extended family at the centre of his life.

Being a Nationalist implies respect for Nationalists from other people groups and an understanding that their struggle to do their best for their people, is no different in essence to our struggle to do the same and is just as commendable. To not accept this and to resent that natural ethnocentric impulse in other groups, is hypocritical.

This is a load of BS, why? Because on their site they are posting memes which basically say:

"You have the right to freedom of speech and an opinion, but I have the right to not respect it".

And their mascot is Pepe The Frog.

The majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted. However, it was inevitable that, as the meme proliferated in online venues such as 4chan, 8chan, and Reddit, which have many users who delight in creating racist memes and imagery, a subset of Pepe memes would come into existence that centered on racist, antisemitic or other bigoted themes.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

Essentially a disabled bloke,

what disability does he have?

he got to say what he wanted and is now being judge by a jury.