Free Speech

[duncet]

It is fantastic that senior judge Mr Justice Julian Knowles has made a stand for common sense by ruling that the police unlawfully interfered with businessman Henry Miller's freedom of expression over an opinion he had expressed on social media. The comment was in relation to the transgender issue, but that isn't the point. It could have been about any issue - politics, climate change, anything, and as long as he wasn't inciting hatred it should not have attracted police attention.
We used to be proud that every British citizen enjoyed freedom of speech. Even if some people found criticism upsetting, free speech was a public benefit that vastly exceeded the importance of mere hurt feelings.
But today, it is not hurt feelings that are necessarily at stake. The politically correct lobby - who appear to dictate what is acceptable - have drawn up an ever growing list of topics that are totally taboo and will not be tolerated, even in the most sensible of discussions.
There seem to be sad people who spend their entire lives staring at social media and looking to be offended by any mention that could be interpreted as politically incorrect. They then make a complaint which often results in national media coverage, which usually leads to a retraction and a grovelling apology.
Full marks to Mr Henry Millar. He stood his ground and did neither. It is a great pity that more people don't do the same

[said]

It is fantastic that senior judge Mr Justice Julian Knowles has made a stand for common sense by ruling that the police unlawfully interfered with businessman Henry Miller's freedom of expression over an opinion he had expressed on social media. The comment was in relation to the transgender issue, but that isn't the point. It could have been about any issue - politics, climate change, anything, and as long as he wasn't inciting hatred it should not have attracted police attention.
We used to be proud that every British citizen enjoyed freedom of speech. Even if some people found criticism upsetting, free speech was a public benefit that vastly exceeded the importance of mere hurt feelings.
But today, it is not hurt feelings that are necessarily at stake. The politically correct lobby - who appear to dictate what is acceptable - have drawn up an ever growing list of topics that are totally taboo and will not be tolerated, even in the most sensible of discussions.
There seem to be sad people who spend their entire lives staring at social media and looking to be offended by any mention that could be interpreted as politically incorrect. They then make a complaint which often results in national media coverage, which usually leads to a retraction and a grovelling apology.
Full marks to Mr Henry Millar. He stood his ground and did neither. It is a great pity that more people don't do the same

I totally agree - and in return we get so many 'easily offended' people who are totally inept in standing up for themselves when necessary. They rely on the authorities to do it for them. I hate to think what would happen to those type of people outside of Europe. British people have a unique eccentricity in that their discussions are light hearted with a sardonic leaning, which is difficult for people without a sense of humour to accept. There generally is no malice intended but easily offended people take it the wrong way. British people should not stop being British, they should not have to hide this sense of humour - it is for the weak people of society who should face up to real life.

[Little Londoner]

When the Government is made up of large numbers of Homosexuals and Lesbians isn't it funny how much protection they have built into law and how much emphasis the Police put into protecting one section of society. I could go out and berate an old lady and I doubt anything would happen but berate a member of the homosexual community my feet wouldn't touch.

[grassroots]

There is a difference between free speech and discrimination against a person .

[Toodles McGinty]

When the Government is made up of large numbers of Homosexuals and Lesbians isn't it funny how much protection they have built into law and how much emphasis the Police put into protecting one section of society. I could go out and berate an old lady and I doubt anything would happen but berate a member of the homosexual community my feet wouldn't touch.

The person who made the complaint was transgender. What on earth has that to do with 'Homosexuals and Lesbians'? Where are the 'large numbers'? Out of 600-odd MPs, how many are 'large numbers'?

Of course I wholly support the right to free speech. But for some people it means the right to be a complete arse-hole without any consequence. 'Free speech' can lead to a crime, for example. Say a rabid Muslim cleric publicly shouts 'death to white British people'. Is that free speech? Is it an incitement to violence? He's allowed an opinion, surely.

Are antisemitic remarks 'free speech'? Vile, unacceptable to decent people. But should people be allowed to express that opinion?

I was recently banned from Twitter for a week. There was an article about NHS staff having the right to refuse treatment to anyone who is being aggressive, sexist or racist. A lot of people took exception to this, saying NHS staff should have to treat anyone who needs it. My comment was 'If you aren't going to be aggressive, sexist or racist, it isn't a problem. If you do plan on being racist, sexist or aggressive, ****** off and die, then'. Of course I understand the reason for the ban. It was the 'and die' bit. But I was exercising my right to an opinion.

I also broke the T&Cs of posting. Just as on here, 'free speech' is curtailed. You can't just say whatever you like. Free speech can get you banned, like it or not. But we all accept those conditions and the consequences of breaking them. It's the shouting 'fire' in a theatre example. Express an opinion - accept the consequences.

[sandGroundZero]

Hate speech has become a hotly debated topic posed as it is as a fundamental contradiction to free speech. Paradoxically, a quote attributed to Voltaire: "I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.", is itself disputed.
As for the judgement cited, namely Miller versus College of Policing the claimant's advocate Mr Wise argued (§121):

…it is critical to distinguish in this context between forms of expression which incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance and forms of expression which may be insulting or offensive to some sections of society but which nevertheless do not incite hatred and which form part of debate on issues of public interest.

So, the judgement seems to hang on legalistic points and likely not the last word on whether it is acceptable to jeer at trans people online.

In one tweet Mr Miller wrote: "I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don't mis-species me."
This tweet was among several others which were reported to Humberside Police as being allegedly transphobic.

#1 …But today, it is not hurt feelings that are necessarily at stake. The politically correct lobby - who appear to dictate what is acceptable - have drawn up an ever growing list of topics that are totally taboo and will not be tolerated, even in the most sensible of discussions.

Still, it seems over the top to assert there is a politically correct lobby who have access to politicians and media as if a sort of Confederation of British Industry for snow flakes.

[Toodles McGinty]

Still, it seems over the top to assert there is a politically correct lobby who have access to politicians and media as if a sort of Confederation of British Industry for snow flakes.

'Freedom of speech' and 'political correctness' are both often used together, by people who get more than a little 'snowflakey' when they realise that someone doesn't agree wholeheartedly with whatever bile they are spewing at the time.

I think there is also a huge difference between writing things online and just uttering them in the street. Online, unless you are one of those peculiar people who use the 'dark web', your speech is monitored and is subject to rules. If that really upsets someone, then they should go to a site that doesn't have T&Cs. Online is not 'free speech', like it or not.

[sandGroundZero]

…British people have a unique eccentricity in that their discussions are light hearted with a sardonic leaning, which is difficult for people without a sense of humour to accept. There generally is no malice intended but easily offended people take it the wrong way. British people should not stop being British, they should not have to hide this sense of humour - it is for the weak people of society who should face up to real life.

Some British people have a world-view which supposes that three centuries, or so of imperial adventure surely justifies a unique licence to sneer, e.g. Duke of Edinburgh:

The state visit in 1986 became renowned for the incident, in which he advised the students: 'If you stay here much longer you will all be slitty-eyed'.

But of course, we know that is, thankfully, very rare.

[said]

The person who made the complaint was transgender. What on earth has that to do with 'Homosexuals and Lesbians'? Where are the 'large numbers'? Out of 600-odd MPs, how many are 'large numbers'?

Of course I wholly support the right to free speech. But for some people it means the right to be a complete arse-hole without any consequence. 'Free speech' can lead to a crime, for example. Say a rabid Muslim cleric publicly shouts 'death to white British people'. Is that free speech? Is it an incitement to violence? He's allowed an opinion, surely.

Are antisemitic remarks 'free speech'? Vile, unacceptable to decent people. But should people be allowed to express that opinion?

I was recently banned from Twitter for a week. There was an article about NHS staff having the right to refuse treatment to anyone who is being aggressive, sexist or racist. A lot of people took exception to this, saying NHS staff should have to treat anyone who needs it. My comment was 'If you aren't going to be aggressive, sexist or racist, it isn't a problem. If you do plan on being racist, sexist or aggressive, ****** off and die, then'. Of course I understand the reason for the ban. It was the 'and die' bit. But I was exercising my right to an opinion.

I also broke the T&Cs of posting. Just as on here, 'free speech' is curtailed. You can't just say whatever you like. Free speech can get you banned, like it or not. But we all accept those conditions and the consequences of breaking them. It's the shouting 'fire' in a theatre example. Express an opinion - accept the consequences.

That is pathetic! Under normal circumstances in a normal society, if some one went around shouting about killing all white people, their feet would not touch the ground - they would suffer severe injuries and that should be the end of it. Eventually they would learn that the behaviour is not acceptable. If someone verbally abuses another person - the other person used to be able to tell them where to get off and once confronted they would shut up. Now, everyone is gagged and has their hands tied because by standing up for yourself you are liable to prosecution. All that does is to inflame the situation. How stupid is that?
No - many people have got that wrong on the internet. You are entitled to free speech - provided you are not acting to incite harm on another person. That is very difficult to prove since the British are facetious in jocular conversation and always have been. But, by publishing on the internet - that X person, at X address is doing or saying something that you do not agree with and should be punished - is inciting hate.

As for slurs against various nationalities - people have come to accept media propaganda, yet again. For instance, Jewish people may receive insults from Muslim people - but it goes both ways! Jewish people give back as much as they receive, they are not soft. The Muslims do the same, and I cannot think of one incident of hate speech that has ever been prosecuted between these two nations. But the inherent lgbt people are forever complaining, and use the system recklessly, which ironically acts against them. For where they express a wish to live among society as all others - they appear to go all out to make a spectacle of themselves and isolate their minority group in society. For every action there is a reaction, and none more detrimental than the pretentious PC followers.

[said]

Some British people have a world-view which supposes that three centuries, or so of imperial adventure surely justifies a unique licence to sneer, e.g. Duke of Edinburgh:

But of course, we know that is, thankfully, very rare.

Did it harm or threaten anyone? This could be said to be a double entendre, very often used in the British language and which you would have great difficulty in proving anything in a court of law.

[Toodles McGinty]

That is pathetic! Under normal circumstances in a normal society, if some one went around shouting about killing all white people, their feet would not touch the ground - they would suffer severe injuries and that should be the end of it. Eventually they would learn that the behaviour is not acceptable. If someone verbally abuses another person - the other person used to be able to tell them where to get off and once confronted they would shut up. Now, everyone is gagged and has their hands tied because by standing up for yourself you are liable to prosecution. All that does is to inflame the situation. How stupid is that?
No - many people have got that wrong on the internet. You are entitled to free speech - provided you are not acting to incite harm on another person. That is very difficult to prove since the British are facetious in jocular conversation and always have been. But, by publishing on the internet - that X person, at X address is doing or saying something that you do not agree with and should be punished - is inciting hate.

As for slurs against various nationalities - people have come to accept media propaganda, yet again. For instance, Jewish people may receive insults from Muslim people - but it goes both ways! Jewish people give back as much as they receive, they are not soft. The Muslims do the same, and I cannot think of one incident of hate speech that has ever been prosecuted between these two nations. But the inherent lgbt people are forever complaining, and use the system recklessly, which ironically acts against them. For where they express a wish to live among society as all others - they appear to go all out to make a spectacle of themselves and isolate their minority group in society. For every action there is a reaction, and none more detrimental than the pretentious PC followers.

How many times have you been banned from here?

I'm not arguing about 'lgbt people' again, as I'm pretty sure you are a self-loathing closet case that hangs around young teenagers more than a 'This Morning' presenter ('shadow people', 'I took a group of teenagers to...').

In your ideal little world, whoever punches hardest wins. You've said something I don't like? You'll 'suffer several injuries'.

Nobody is 'gagged'. It's about being a decent human being, FFS. Not being the loudest boor with the hardest fists. You have to wait too long in a queue, do you just punch someone? Get a ticket from a traffic warden? Just punch her and let that be the end of it. Eventually they'll learn that behaviour is 'not acceptable'?

What really makes me laugh about all the chest-beating and posturing, I'd bet a fair wedge that most of those bellowing loudest about free speech are elderly idiots well past 'confronting' anyone and shutting them up. Explaining their plaintive squealing about 'free speech'.

On the internet - on here, on Twitter, Facebook, etc - you are bound by T&C. Hence your repeated bans. By posting, you accept that. If your free speech is hampered in some way, get over it or don't post. It's simple.

[sandGroundZero]

The first thing to note in any sensible discussion of freedom of speech is that it will have to be limited. Every society places some limits on the exercise of speech because it always takes place within a context of competing values.
Courtesy Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[said]

How many times have you been banned from here?

I'm not arguing about 'lgbt people' again, as I'm pretty sure you are a self-loathing closet case that hangs around young teenagers more than a 'This Morning' presenter ('shadow people', 'I took a group of teenagers to...').

In your ideal little world, whoever punches hardest wins. You've said something I don't like? You'll 'suffer several injuries'.

Nobody is 'gagged'. It's about being a decent human being, FFS. Not being the loudest boor with the hardest fists. You have to wait too long in a queue, do you just punch someone? Get a ticket from a traffic warden? Just punch her and let that be the end of it. Eventually they'll learn that behaviour is 'not acceptable'?

What really makes me laugh about all the chest-beating and posturing, I'd bet a fair wedge that most of those bellowing loudest about free speech are elderly idiots well past 'confronting' anyone and shutting them up. Explaining their plaintive squealing about 'free speech'.

On the internet - on here, on Twitter, Facebook, etc - you are bound by T&C. Hence your repeated bans. By posting, you accept that. If your free speech is hampered in some way, get over it or don't post. It's simple.

By the same token, those who are rude to others generally have very low self esteem - I feel sorry for you but I am sure that you have some valuable personal assets.
As you point out, I have been banned numerous times - more for over caution than anything illegal, otherwise I would have been done long before now. Any facts that I publish on the internet are copied and pasted from other sites i.e. It is in the public domain and has not been removed! Other remarks are English colloquialisms and are not illegal.I am very careful about what I do write and careful how it is worded, unlike many posters who have not realised that they are guilty of cyber bullying - but since the recipient has not 'taken offence' gets no further. So long as you have that clear!

Now - it is part of my job to be around teenagers. What sort of person would I be if any of those teenagers came under a threat while with me and I did nothing about it? The same goes for any other vulnerable people in our group. No doubt you would stand there and let them be bullied and harassed. That is not my way!

Negligible annoyances are part of life which one learns to ignore. I wonder how you would cope if someone knocked on the door after just having been stabbed? I wonder how you would cope standing near someone who had been attacked and robbed and the person who did it was within reaching distance? How would you react if a group of teenagers had been harassing an elderly lady and damaging her property? I bet you would be of the opinion that 'it has nothing to do with me' and walk off. That is not my way!

It is the vulnerable people who will continue to be picked on because they are an easy target and the wheels of justice take a long time to turn. Immediate action is far more satisfactory for all those concerned. I am not stupid - there are many risks to be considered - but I know that if I stood long enough to think about them, someone could be badly injured.

Luckily in society, there are more and more people who will stand up for themselves and for others, this can only be for the good because there are insufficient numbers of Police for everyone to have a personal bodyguard. You may not like who I am - that is your problem not mine.

[sandGroundZero]

That is pathetic!
…For every action there is a reaction, and none more detrimental than the pretentious PC followers.

…just out of curiosity, are pretentious PC followers the action, or the reaction?

So-called political correctness persists because it is a useful device in the culture wars pitting self-described beleaguered minorities against one another. It has been a highly successful tactic in recent decdes. Christians agonize over gays; anti-semites rail agains Jews' control banking, media, what have you; predominantly Caucasion communities vexed by immigrants; ethnic minorities against ethnic majorities; …the list goes on.

Who are the losers in political correctness hysteria? Pretty much, all of us! But there must be some winners, if only because there's always someone ready to stir the pot.

[Toodles McGinty]

By the same token, those who are rude to others generally have very low self esteem - I feel sorry for you but I am sure that you have some valuable personal assets.

Just exercising my right to free speech.

As you point out, I have been banned numerous times - more for over caution than anything illegal

As I recall, you've been banned for Holocaust denial, wanting to maim and murder a woman, and IIRC speculating wildly over someone who died in an unfortunate accident. Not illegal. But, as I wrote, against the T&Cs of this site.

Now - it is part of my job to be around teenagers.

You claim you're a chemist? What, for teenagers?

What sort of person would I be if any of those teenagers came under a threat while with me and I did nothing about it? The same goes for any other vulnerable people in our group. No doubt you would stand there and let them be bullied and harassed. That is not my way!

But you're fine with someone being bullied and harassed online? Or is it just LGBT people?

It is the vulnerable people who will continue to be picked on because they are an easy target and the wheels of justice take a long time to turn.

and

and in return we get so many 'easily offended' people who are totally inept in standing up for themselves when necessary. They rely on the authorities to do it for them

We have laws in society to protect the vulnerable. Not everyone can 'stand up for themselves'. Women, children, most men. Yes, these people rely on the authorities. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need authorities. People would mind their own business regarding other people's lives and treat each other with respect. Then we wouldn't need police or courts.

Luckily in society, there are more and more people who will stand up for themselves and for others, this can only be for the good because there are insufficient numbers of Police for everyone to have a personal bodyguard. You may not like who I am - that is your problem not mine.

I neither like or dislike you. I just find it ironic that those who decide they can say exactly what they like, no matter what effect it has on other people, are the first to squeal about free speech when challenged.