Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Paul_cz, Dec 13, 2018.
Hurting someones feelings should be of no interest to the state, its as simple as that.
I should have cut "offensive" it is the threatening others or trying to impinge other peoples rights.
I'm not saying you are threatening anyone, just replying to people discussing what is/isn't free speech.
On the plus side, according to the very article you linked, the UK is still rated as “good” or “fairly good”.
How can saying things to people impinge their rights?
"United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law. In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act."
That's where it should end, too much "however" and "buts" in our law, hence why someone is fined for making a joke video on youtube or those idiots burning an effigy of Grenfell.
The problem with British law is the fact that it does stop top early. We have a system of common law where most of our laws are written as frameworks and we then let the judges define our law through cases.
We need clearer laws, but on your specific point I would disagree about the law stopping where you suggest as I prefer the British/EU system of FoS up until it impinges upon others as opposed to the US system with unlimited FoS.
Most laws are incredibly clear, it's the social situation that changes which brings in nuance. Common law is just a reflection of our customs and values heritage. Statues a very specific in what they seek to achieve and what constitutes an offence.
A prime example is sexual offences and public order. The latest statutes were written before the advent of multi-gender/common place surgically created genitalia and social media. Case law is essential for determining what is and isn't covered rather than endlessly writing new laws to cover every conceivable situation.
I could not disagree more and this is coming from a trained solicitor. Our legal system is a confusing mess because of common law, we need clarity not ambiguity. It's great for solicitors/barristers but a system in which those responsible for implementing/upholding the law is effectively writing it is, IMO, incorrect and immoral and impinges on one of the key tenets of a successful democracy, the separation of power.
We don't even have a constitution underpinning our legal system
When was a the last time common law caused you issues? It's case law relating to statue that has been more of an issue to me.
calls for police action over comedian’s comments on BBC Radio 4
Generally comments have to be funny to be considered a joke. That was just a vile remark.
A true comedian would have said " I wouldnt even throw battery acid in his face"
The police have investigated far more tame comments than that...
BBC have removed the content from their services now and said:
In a statement, the BBC said it was "not intended to be taken seriously".
Yet they plagued Carl Benjamin with questions over and over again about the wouldn't even rape Twitter post.
Couldn't make the hypocrisy up if you tried.
Yea the BBC seem to do that. I don't pay the licence fee anymore so meh
I don't agree. I am sure people will try very hard to construct things to get the political point they want to make.
Farage for example has defended untruthful and hateful speech, particularly when it comes to himself (e.g. his school boy nazi comments).
You could not make it up if you tried but you can still present things to make the point that it's always the fault of someone I don't agree with. That always easily comes to mind.
Censorship of speech.
B.B.C has caved to someone seeking to censor views he does not like while on the other hand he supports the freedom to express views he does like.
He is if nothing else consistent and consistently lacking when it comes to the idea of democracy he claims to defend.
There is a big difference you are clearly forgetting, Jo Brand is talking about an act of violence or inciting violence, which is not the same as hate speech. In fact Hate Speach shouldn't even be something a government is interested in as people should be free to say whatever they want, its fundamental to an absolute free society. The line is drawn at calls to or inciting violence.
More a case of not agreeing with you're claim that Jo brand was attempting to incite an act of violence.
Although I may be wrong I am not judge jury and executioner.
One of the accusations made against Mr Farage was his use of a song 'gas em all, gas em all, gas em all'
So I also don't agree with the distinction you are making in regard to Jo brand a comedian telling a joke and Nigel Farage a political leader with the ambition to run the country singing a song.
I do have a tendency to take the remarks of one more seriously than the other as I can clearly tell the difference between a comedian and a politician.
I don't agree with your comparison of Nigel Farage (allegedly as the source is still unknown) singing an offensive song as a schoolboy in the company of close friends as comparible to the 61 year old Jo Brand announcing on TV that she would rather political opponents had battery acid thrown in their faces than milk.
I think it's pretty obvious she wasnt intending to incite somebody to actually throw acid in somebody's face and thought it would be hilarious to conjure up the image of Farage having his face melted off. But as the left keeps telling us, speech is dangerous and even the mildest of comments can incite murder.
You're argument is the difference in scale makes the difference? It was only a few peasants disturbed?
Not sure what his close relationship with the rest of the Nazi choral society has do with it.
Clearly in this case its not the left but the far- right telling us its dangerous.
Is it not?
Farage's position is somewhat difficult to pin down at times, master of distraction and the 'no over there' type argument. That we all know and love.
p.s. by the standards of the forum I am left wing (not so in real life) but I am also a libertarian as are many right wing folks. I disagree with my more authoritarian brethren who live on both the right and the left.
I thought it was the one aspect of Farage I could at least agree with. But it would appear he is not one to let conviction get in the way of beating his political opponents with a stick.
I don't see this as a left/ right issue. More libertarian v authoritarian perspectives.
Not a tribal issue I can agree with very right wing folks here. I have something in common with other libertarians although we don't agree on everything.
No my argument is we have unconfirmed accounts from somebody who refuses to be named saying that whilst at school (11-16?) Farage sang anti-Semitic songs with his mates late at night with no indication anyone else heard it or complained.
On the other hand we have a prominent media figure in her 60s, on national TV, making a joke about an acid attack and that being her fantasy. Farage has complained and I can see why considering how many times he's been assaulted the last couple of weeks.
You can't defend Jo Brand on this with vague whatabouttery. It wasn't even a funny or clever joke, it was a snide remark.
This isn't a left or right thing. If you can't see the difference then I can't convey my point any clearer than that.
It's looking pretty bad for Jo Brand right now. She steadfastly refused to apologise this morning. Since then the BBC has now pulled the programme and apologised for any offence caused.
Also on LBC and other media outlets had acid attack victims actually coming on and condemning Jo Brand! Ouch!
Unless she changes her mind on apologising she's going to come across as arrogant
Separate names with a comma.