Poetry: The Door Closes
- Thread starter Rostam
- Start date
Whilst discussing America is a bit off-topic I'm just stating that I think we should follow their lead in this much more closely. It's easier for them, obviously, as they have the Bill of Rights which offers much more protection and sets out what can or can't be done (to an extent, courts interpretation is obviously the determinant factor).
I disagree, yes you shouldn't be able to falsely shout such a thing out (the Sup. Court made specific mention that it required to be a false statement) but stating something shouldn't be illegal if it has no probable or reasonable danger of occurrence. Hence the current test in the US - "In each case [the courts] must ask whether the gravity of the ‘evil’ discanted by its probability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.”. I don't believe that the crime in question, at least with the facts present to us, is of such high enough gravity to warrant such a stiff prison sentence.
Another area of US law that springs to mind is the following quote from Texas v. Johnson - "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the 1st Am/dt it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society find the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." I think that's an important quote as it really goes to the heart of the issue and provides reassurance that just because something is potentially offensive doesn't make it 'wrong' to say so.
Plus, Castiel - I wasn't defending him and suggesting he was indeed a rebel leader but rather musing and showing a different side of the argument. I don't agree with what he did, but nor do I think he warrants such a severe (if any) prison sentence.
Excuse the incoherence of the above, I'm just out of bed so not with it quite yet!
Man of Honour
I did give the full sentiment of the quote, I know that falsely is an important part of the criteria suggested and wouldn't omit it. However it is, as it has always been, something that is up for debate and relies on a rather subjective opinion of what constitutes incitement to hatred before a case could even be brought.
Where is a line drawn with regard to probable or reasonable danger of it occurring? And perhaps as much to the point even if we do not have a specific official test as set out in the case of X vs Y (to be binding it would have to be a UK case as you know, American cases can merely be persuasive) then it's perfectly plausible that this is already part of the considerations in terms of the CPS bringing the case to trial. De facto can be of the same effect (and value) as de jure in the eyes of the law.
The right to completely unfettered free speech is one that has never been extant in the UK or indeed in America, there may be fewer restrictions in America but it's a series of fairly arbitrary lines that have been drawn in every jurisdiction in the World. I wouldn't object too much if there was a bit more leniency in the UK's approach at times but I don't think it's the oppressive regime that some people (not you) have on occasion chosen to paint it as.
In some ways it would be nice if we had no restrictions and people could do whatever and say whatever they wanted but it has to be balanced against a wider social consideration. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - that's Mr Wendell-Holmes Sr this time and you could extend the sentiment to what people say as well (with my apologies to the man for misappropriating his quote in a manner he may not have approved of).
Last edited: