Free Speech

[DarkLink]

Most people probably know about the riots associated with the Innocence of Muslims video on Youtube. It's been quite controversial, and some have called for the arrest of the man responsible for the video.

Well, here's an article on the importance of free speech, specifically associated with blasphemy laws (Popehat is run by a lawyer specializing in First Amendment cases, and protecting freedom of speech is a common theme on his blog):
http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/14/a-year-of-blasphemy (http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/14/a-year-of-blasphemy/#more-16299)



As for the guy who made the video, there's more to that story as well: http://www.popehat.com/tag/innocence-of-muslims-video/

Basically, the guy who made the video was arrested, but not for the content of the video. The guy was a convicted fraudster who owes $700,000 in restitution damages. Making videos and distributing them on the internet while using aliases (which is precisely what he did) is essentially a violation of his probation, because of the whole fraud thing.

[Chris Copeland]

NPR recently did an excellent article that delved into the differences between how Americans view Free Speech and how it is viewed in the rest of the world. The article can be found here (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161439562/held-dear-in-u-s-free-speech-perplexing-abroad). Check it out. I found it enlightening!

[DarkLink]

Apparently Obama recently signed a law protecting American citizens from foreign retribution. Basically, the USA won't recognize any demands for extradition if it cannot be proven in court that the conviction would stand under our far more stringent laws. And it was signed specifically to counter legal action on behalf of some of our most civilized allies, in this case Britain. There are times when I'm glad I'm an American.

That example actually leads to half the reason I follow Popehat's blog. Aside from containing a lot of useful legal information, he links to funny stuff. Apparently the UK's Treasury Solicitor's Department decided to try and shut down an American web service that was only related to the UK in that the TSD wanted to censor a particular hosted website into nonexistence. The web service, NearlyFreeSpeech.com, responded with this: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/files/NFSNUKTsolResponse.pdf

[Wolfshade]

I sometimes wish we had American style freedom of speech. We recently had a university society kicked out of their freshers' fayre for having a pineapple labled as mohammed.
The intent was that it would provoke debate about should people respect relgion.

[Psychosplodge]

Apparently Obama recently signed a law protecting American citizens from foreign retribution. Basically, the USA won't recognize any demands for extradition if it cannot be proven in court that the conviction would stand under our far more stringent laws. And it was signed specifically to counter legal action on behalf of some of our most civilized allies, in this case Britain. There are times when I'm glad I'm an American.

And thereby undermining the previous extradition treaty you'd been using to extradite people from here for offences that aren't even illegal here, works both ways...(But apparently not any more).

[eldargal]

Yep, you can say whatever the hell you want.:) On the other hand, I don't have to put up with my personal life being invaded by my employer forcing me to undergo compulsory drug tests or be fired based simply on the suspicion that I may be using narcotics.

There are times when I'm glad I'm an American.

[Wolfshade]

(Un)fortunately, compulsory random drug tests are already here, they have been here for a while. I was lobbying my current employer that that was not strictly necessary for all of our employees and thankfully they have shelved the idea.

[Psychosplodge]

@EG surely you should be more grateful you live in a country that can't sack you for getting pregnant...


@Wolfie It's only here if it's in your contract. Seems a bit overkill to be honest. I once worked somewhere with an unofficial rule that employee x wasn't allowed on a forklift before 13:00 on a saturday, as it was known what his friday night drinking was like...

[Wolfshade]

But if your job requires it you have two choices have a job and that clause or have no job.
I personally feel safer knowing that 'bus drivers and the like are subject to random drug and alcohol testing to ensure public safety.

[Psychosplodge]

Oh yeah, I've got no problems with that. I don't really think it's fair if they use tests that will show a positive reaction for things that are not effecting them during work hours, I doubt what someone does Friday night would affect driving Monday morning...
It would be nice to see a side of the road breathalyser style drug test, something that reacts while you're under the influence...

[Wolfshade]

There are current systems that show positive reactions to drugs in real time in a similiar speed to breathliser.

[Psychosplodge]

Then I can't see it being a problem. I mean I'd object to hair tests for cannabis or the like as while I don't use it, You can't really avoid walking through clouds of the stuff at festivals...and would be less than amused if that cost me my job.

[Wolfshade]

Oh yes certainly, currently there are "safety critical" roles which require drug testing as a clause. Though usually the "random" checks are either the minimum required by law or when someone suspects something but doesn't have enough information for a suspected charge

[eldargal]

Generally only for jobs where it could do some serious damage and as you indicate employers (only around 4% in the UK) are rather more flexible about it given that it can be challenged under one or other of our human rights treaties. I don't have an issue with drug tests for people where safety is an issue, but when you start drug testing everyone (I had an American friend I played MMOs with for years who lost her job as a secretary because she smoked some marijuana on the weekend, no impact on her work) without evidence it is impactingo n their job I find that a gross violation of individual freedoms.

(Un)fortunately, compulsory random drug tests are already here, they have been here for a while. I was lobbying my current employer that that was not strictly necessary for all of our employees and thankfully they have shelved the idea.

Just to clarify something, I'm not trying to imply that the US doesn't protect individual liberty or anything like that, I was just trying to point out that each nation has its own foibles when it comes to protecting them.

Having said that, a little research into what Pyschosplodge said has revealed that not only is the US the only developed nation without paid maternity leave you can indeed be sacked for becoming pregnant. That is nothing short of contemptible.

[Sean_OBrien]

@EG surely you should be more grateful you live in a country that can't sack you for getting pregnant...

Keep in mind - I can't fire someone for getting pregnant either. I would have to double check the specific regulations - but during the pregnancy and up to 4 or 8 weeks after birth, they can pretty much stop working and gimp the system along for a pay check and benefits.

Most my work is white color office stuff though, so having a pregnant girl on the staff isn't that big of a deal - however it is not so for all companies. A friend is in the construction company and had a girl as a worker on one of his teams. A couple years ago, she became pregnant and almost immediately had to be removed from actual construction work (between fumes from chemicals and other job hazards and later physical difficulties in actually doing her job). For 7 months he was paying her full time construction pay for part time parts runner work during a very rough time for the construction business. Although he laid off regular able bodied workers - he was not able to lay her off. Right after she popped out the rug rat, she quit.

The drug testing also requires it to be part of the employment "contract" here - though it is generally just tossed in with the blanket agreements that you are going to be part of a company who can do random or on demand drug testing. All my employees have the clause, however I do not test. To be honest, it would just be less of a hassle for me to fire them if I suspect they are on drugs rather than do the tests and than follow that path...though I avoid locating offices in states which don't allow me to fire people when I feel like it.

[Wolfshade]

Thinking of the pregancy front, they are making redundancies at my work and two of the people going applied for a job with another department, the one is a male chappie who previously worked on a fixed term contract for that department and has knowledge and experiance of the role the other is a woman who hasn't. By virtue that she is pregenant she has god the job despite being the poorer applicant because she can't be made redundant it is irritating.

Did you see some of the restrictions that they tried to put on teachers about them not doing anything in their free time which might bring schools into illrupute including drinking and clubbing.
First they tell you how to dress, the next they tell you how to behave soon they will tell us how to think!

[eldargal]

I still take issue with that. Giving people the right to do drug tests on any employee regardless of whether or not it actually impacts on their performance or potentially endangers others is just wrong.

The drug testing also requires it to be part of the employment "contract" here - though it is generally just tossed in with the blanket agreements that you are going to be part of a company who can do random or on demand drug testing. All my employees have the clause, however I do not test. To be honest, it would just be less of a hassle for me to fire them if I suspect they are on drugs rather than do the tests and than follow that path...though I avoid locating offices in states which don't allow me to fire people when I feel like it.

The pregnancy issue isn't just as simple as 'you're pregnant, you're fired' (except in Texas where you can be fired for being pregnant if you aren't married apparently...) but it is a case of 'you can no longer fufill your duties due to the pregnancy, you're fired' with no consideration of the fact they are pregnant. There is an article here (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/04/05/epidemic-of-pregnant-women-getting-fired-legal-loopholes-to-bla/?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000034). It is absolutely disgraceful. There are third world countries which handle the issue better than this for gods sake.

[Psychosplodge]

@Wolfie That's wrong the more qualified applicant should have got the job, that's unfortunately the flip side of it.

@Sean if you avoid locating in states that don't let you fire because you want, you effectively can fire because of pregnancy, you personally may chose not to but the option remains.

[Sean_OBrien]

Actually no - I can't. The article which you linked to also is not exactly valid to the discussion...because they aren't being fired for being pregnant, but are fired under the guise of any number of other things. Just because someone does something, doesn't in fact make it legal. Also, you have to actually follow the links:

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/pregnancy.cfm

Although they tossed that up to illustrate their claim of increased firings for being pregnant - that chart shows something different. For example of 5797 claims made to the EEOC - 1017 were subject to administrative closures (generally because the claim doesn't pass the sniff test). 266 were determined to be "Just Cause" terminations - that is when they looked at the evidence provided by the employer, they were in fact fired for something which was not related to their pregnancy. The remaining 5199 settlements for the year were found in favor of the terminated employee in some form.

The result are fines and penalties, back pay and other costs related to wrongful termination. There is a group which like to pretend that there it is a problem at large, however it is a whole lot of nothing. Laws are in place to prevent it from happening, and when it does happen - the companies who do it are hammered. In articles like the one linked to which exist entirely to further the misinformation.

The specific example listed in the article which involves a UPS driver was ruled in UPS's favor on a technicality. The first article paraphrases her doctor: "When she got pregnant, her doctor said that probably wasn't a good idea and Young should stick to packages 20 pounds or less." The problem with that though is that "probably" prevents it from the temporary disabled status under the ADA. If the doctor would have said "don't" - she would have qualified for legal protections. Without knowing the specifics of that case in particular though, I would guess that she was fired for a reason other than being pregnant.

A quick read of the appeal of the case though seems to indicate a largely scatter brained set of claims and ineffective consul (not even stating the rule which would justify the appeal for example):

http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110214_0000143.DMD.htm/qx

Pregnant women are protected from firing for their "condition" under Federal law - so state law is irrelevant in that regard. Some states provide greater benefits (more paid leave for example), however the Federal law plays trump.

First and foremost, they are protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That has been in place as long as I have been doing business and a quick search shows it goes back to 1964. That law prevents you from firing a pregnant woman for being pregnant, prevents layoffs from impacting them and reductions in pay related to their ability (or inability) to do their job:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm

Further, pregnancy, or rather the various limitations of it are classified as a temporary disability - which adds an even greater level of protection under the ADA. If a girl is put on rest for pregnancy related hypertension and is told by her doctor that she needs to keep her feet up - I have to provide her with a work station which allows for that. If the doctor says she can't lift more than 20 lbs and her job is a delivery driver - I have to take her off that job and keep paying her the same as before.


I still take issue with that. Giving people the right to do drug tests on any employee regardless of whether or not it actually impacts on their performance or potentially endangers others is just wrong.

I would tend to agree - if we were talking about the government walking into my house without cause and demanding I give a drug test...however it tends to be a bit of a different issue when dealing with the employer/employee relationship.

There are very few instances where drug use could not directly or indirectly impact job performance. From increased liability should things go sideways to reduced reliability that goes along with the vast majority of drug use... You have the right to refuse the test, but then I have the right to fire you at that point. You also have the ability to go work somewhere else - or work for yourself.

I don't think anyone's rights or liberties should be limited - however I tend to think that "anyone" should include employers. If they want to test on a regular basis - let them. If they don't want to test - that is fine as well. If you don't want to be tested, there are a lot of jobs out there which don't test.

[Psychosplodge]

though I avoid locating offices in states which don't allow me to fire people when I feel like it.

Surely it falls under this?

I'm too busy pretending to look busy to read the links during office hours...

[eldargal]

Abuses against person freedoms are bad whoever does it.

I would tend to agree - if we were talking about the government walking into my house without cause and demanding I give a drug test...however it tends to be a bit of a different issue when dealing with the employer/employee relationship.

[Sean_OBrien]

Surely it falls under this?

I'm too busy pretending to look busy to read the links during office hours...

Not normally. I can fire you because I don't like you...because you are wearing a shirt for a team I don't like...because it is Wednesday...

...however, when it comes to the various discriminatory (or potentially) actions - you have eggshells to cross over in order to avoid legal ramifications. Like I said, Federal Employment laws trump State and local laws. If you read the case which was discussed in passing in the article and I linked to, she sued because she was a woman, a minority (guessing black, but I don't think that was stated) and because she was pregnant. 2 of the three were dismissed outright - the third claim was more an issue of her not getting her paperwork squared away on a temporary disability claim (and then just sort of stopped showing up for work for several months).

[Sean_OBrien]

Abuses against person freedoms are bad whoever does it.

Whose freedom? The right for someone to take drugs or the right of the employer to determine who he employs?

[Psychosplodge]

The right of the employee to do what they want out of work?

[Sean_OBrien]

The right of the employee to do what they want out of work?

With regard to alcohol and tobacco, I would agree whole heartedly. However, the reality is that the drugs in question are normally illegal and have additional ramifications.

If one of my employees were to get pinched for drug possession, it would likely cost me thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. Most are lead programmers on a given program and quite often have specific details which are known only to them. I don't generally loose any sleep over that potential possibility, but I can completely understand why some employers might.

Legal activities though done outside of work, should not be of any concern for the employer.

[Psychosplodge]

Can't you take out insurance for that? :D
is possession not just a slap on the wrist and a fine?

[Sean_OBrien]

Can't you take out insurance for that? :D
is possession not just a slap on the wrist and a fine?

Depends on what they are possessing, how much and where they get pinched. At the very least, they will probably miss a few days of work for their court appearances...though (and this is a good bit outside my area of expertise) as I understand it, they will generally toss you in the local jail for a day or two while the legal specifics are determined and a judge sets your bail for your actual court appearance.

And yes - we have insurance of a sort for that kind of thing. Also covers them in the event of something like a car accident or other mishap that prevents them from being able to complete their job in order. Long term though, even with insurance to cover actual losses - the lasting effect is somewhat harder to finger. Most my work comes in because of word of mouth from past customers. If I blow a deadline because one of my project leads was picked up for possession...I would get back the money lost on the contract, but that wouldn't do me much good for the next customer which I miss getting or during contract negotiations where I am now saddled with the reputation of unreliability.

[Psychosplodge]

Two days pissing about with bail for possession? O_O

Just legalise it and tax them...

[Sean_OBrien]

Two days pissing about with bail for possession? O_O

Just legalise it and tax them...

If you believe those who believe that sort of thing...2 days is probably the low side of thing. After all, that is what we do with minorities in the US. Get them hooked on drugs and then lock them up for several decades. However, I seem to recall in passing that it was something relatively small like the couple days and a fine though. Granted, a good part of that will be dependent on when you get picked up. The judge will set your bail, and they don't keep judges sitting around waiting for people to get arrested. However, if you get picked up while a judge is in place and doing there thing...you might be out in a few hours time.

Legalizing and taxing is a possibility, though I am not a fan of "sin taxes". If something is legal, make it legal and a commodity. If it has additional related costs (like the gas from the other thread) - levy an appropriate use tax. However, taxing a legal product simply to tax it (either to discourage use...for those who are less cynical - or to boost revenues for those who are more cynical regarding the real reason behind sin taxes).

[eldargal]

It doesn't matter if drugs are illegal, because it isn't just the users being subjected to the tests. I don't see it being any different to not having to submit to your property being searched without a warrant. If you want to invade someones because you suspect they are taking drugs then there should be some mechanism you should find out, if only where there may be safety issues. But you shouldn't just be able to force your employees to undergo drug tests because drugs are illegal.

[Wildeybeast]

I sometimes wish we had American style freedom of speech. We recently had a university society kicked out of their freshers' fayre for having a pineapple labled as mohammed.
The intent was that it would provoke debate about should people respect relgion.

There are plenty of ways of doing that without being needlessly and thoughtlessly offensive. Anyone with half a brain knows how sensitive Muslims are about the portrayal of Muhammed and would realise this is just going to piss them off. And by singling out Islam in that manner rather than coming up with a general point about respect for religion, it makes it look they are deliberately targeting them. I'm not saying they should have been kicked out of the fayre, but common sense should have told them this was going to cause a problem which would overshadow their point.

On the oppressive work practices, my mate works for the Co-op. They force their employees to clock in using a finger print scanner, which means they have all their employees' finger prints indefinitely stored on a database. He thought this was normal practice until I pointed that even the police and government weren't allowed to do this unless you had committed a crime. I found it somewhat ironic that it's a champion of fairness and equality like the Co-op which is doing this.

[DarkLink]

Man, this thread took off overnight.

You're missing the point, Wildeybeast. If some random dude wants to be a ********, there won't be legal action taken unless it is criminal outside of the offensiveness. Because who defines what's offensive or not? If offensive speech is illegal, then I can arbitrarily label anything as offensive and limitlessly abuse that authority to have people thrown in jail or otherwise punished for saying literally anything. You see that all the time in the more oppressive governments in the world. Is the random dude an *********? Yeah, and he'll be treated like one by most people, get socially ostracized, etc, but it's a huge step down a slippery slope to start to authorize government action to arbitrarily censor speech.

Our governments aren't generally benign and respectful of the rights of its citizens because we Westerners are somehow more inherently nicer and more moral people than those in more oppressive parts of the world. It's because we have clear and strong legal and cultural protection for the rights of our citizens. Erase those protections, and it's only a matter of time before we start to look like some third world dictatorship.

Not that even we are perfect. Obama has authorized and executed drone strikes to kill American citizens who were working with terrorists, without a trial. But that just illustrates how we have to fight to protect our various individual rights all the more.

[Wildeybeast]

No, I got the point. Free speech is a fundamental right that I will defend to my dying breath, but it's all to easy to use it as shield for stupid and thoughtless comments or worse for spreading hate. We don't silence these people, we seek to engage with them and show them that as a society we think what they are saying is not on. It's a long standing conflict between two human rights. On the one hand, the right to free speech/freedom on the press, on the other the right to private life and not to be insulted by others. Every civilised government has to grapple with how far they allow freedom of speech. In this country, we put limits on it and let the legal system decide what is and is not offensive. Far from ideal, but it's about the best system we have. I'm not suggesting governments get to arbitrarily decide. A democratic government reflects the will of the people and should legislate accordingly. We the people hold them to account when they don't. I'm agreeing with you here. I'm just adding that society and therefore the state should hold those who abuse free speech to account.

[Wolfshade]

There are plenty of ways of doing that without being needlessly and thoughtlessly offensive. Anyone with half a brain knows how sensitive Muslims are about the portrayal of Muhammed and would realise this is just going to piss them off. And by singling out Islam in that manner rather than coming up with a general point about respect for religion, it makes it look they are deliberately targeting them. I'm not saying they should have been kicked out of the fayre, but common sense should have told them this was going to cause a problem which would overshadow their point.

There are two things wrong with this, the first is that they were not saying that the pineapple was the prophet or any representation of him and secondly they also labelled the pineapple as Jesus during the day as well. So it is hardly being singled out.

[Wildeybeast]

I take the second point now you've given me that extra info. Though unless you spent most of the day there, you would easily make the assumption I just did as you wander past. As to your first point, if you put someone's name on something, it's pretty obvious that people are going to take it you are representing them as that thing, or at least associating them with it in some way. If I put cream cake on tray with the name Wolfshade next to it, you would reasonably assume I intended it to be yours. It would be nonsensical to suggest the pineapple belonged to Muhammed, so the next most obvious assumption would be they intended to suggest the Pineapple was Muhammed. It may not be correct, but that's how most reasonable people will react and my point is that anyone with half a brain would have realised this and how it could easily be seen as being offensive.

[Sean_OBrien]

There are plenty of ways of doing that without being needlessly and thoughtlessly offensive. Anyone with half a brain knows how sensitive Muslims are about the portrayal of Muhammed and would realise this is just going to piss them off. And by singling out Islam in that manner rather than coming up with a general point about respect for religion, it makes it look they are deliberately targeting them. I'm not saying they should have been kicked out of the fayre, but common sense should have told them this was going to cause a problem which would overshadow their point.

In all honesty, that may well have been their point. By calling the pineapple Mohamed, it illustrates the double standard that exists - especially if they called it Jesus earlier (or perhaps labelled a cucumber Jesus).

The partial free speech isn't something which works well in the long run. If you decide to limit your speech regarding one group of individuals because they have a tendency to burn down embassy's or issue fatwas against someone who draws a picture - then you no longer have free speech in the most important sense. It ends up a lot like having kids, if you give into their demands - you reinforce the bad behavior. Next thing you know you will see other groups causing similar issues in order to prevent people from making fun or speaking against their group.

It isn't that exceptionally unrealistic either, as in the not so distant past bad behavior like the Rodney King Riots influenced the verdict of the OJ Simpson trial.

Perhaps a global draw Mohamed month would be helpful in that regard - either that, or it would push them over the brink. Both would settle the issue though.

[DarkLink]

Wildeybeast, you claim to want to defend free speech, then go on about how we should limit it, and you do so in such a way that falls right down the slippery slope I talked about. That's the point you're missing. The guy who made the video might have been "insensitive", but why do we focus on that instead of focusing on the fact half the Middle East rioted and murdered a dozen people over something some random guy halfway around the world did? He just criticized and portrayed Mohammed. They went out and killed people. And your reaction is "well, we shouldn't ever criticize anyone, because they might find it offensive, I guess".

People will be rude on occasion. They will criticize others. They will not always agree with each other. If you start banning speech on these conditions, then there won't be any speech left to speak, because no matter what you say you will offend someone somewhere. One day, Muslims can't portray the prophet. Then non-Muslims can't, either. Then you can't say anything critical about Islam. Then you have to be Islamic, because not being Islamic is blasphemous. Substitute whatever religion, whatever political philosophy, whatever dogma or doctrine in place of Muslim/Islam in that equation, and soon the world ends up a miserable place.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

You know what? All these political threads are starting to annoy me.

And at the British people in this thread, why do we even care what America does? It isn't our government.

[Psychosplodge]

Because they have a large effect outside their borders, the video that caused all the fuss not only got American embassies attacked but several British and German ones as well.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Face it. Government are bad.
What really can we do about it though? We don't have any say or any power.

[Wolfshade]

@Wildey: If you name your child Mohammed are you claiming that your child is Mohammed; clearly not. So why limit it to people? I am sure, given how populous the name is, that at least one of these Mohammeds would have done something to bring the name into disripute, so why try and force people to reserve "special" names for people. Would their be outcry if I name a traction engine Frank Dibnah, or a Gherkin Christian Bale.

@TDA: Government might be bad but ultimately they are elected by us and so we have a say of which party is in power, though not who the prime minister is.
It is in trying to protect people from offense that you create issues and double standards.

[alshrive]

i would love a Gherkin called Christian Bale! also would drastically improve Chris Nolan's batman films as there would be more personality and emotion in the acting.

[Psychosplodge]

The only way there could be less would be to replace Bale with the bloke form twilight...

[Wolfshade]

The only way there could be less would be to replace Bale with the bloke form twilight...

Christian Stewart?

[Psychosplodge]

probably.

[Wildeybeast]

Wildeybeast, you claim to want to defend free speech, then go on about how we should limit it, and you do so in such a way that falls right down the slippery slope I talked about. That's the point you're missing. The guy who made the video might have been "insensitive", but why do we focus on that instead of focusing on the fact half the Middle East rioted and murdered a dozen people over something some random guy halfway around the world did? He just criticized and portrayed Mohammed. They went out and killed people. And your reaction is "well, we shouldn't ever criticize anyone, because they might find it offensive, I guess".

People will be rude on occasion. They will criticize others. They will not always agree with each other. If you start banning speech on these conditions, then there won't be any speech left to speak, because no matter what you say you will offend someone somewhere. One day, Muslims can't portray the prophet. Then non-Muslims can't, either. Then you can't say anything critical about Islam. Then you have to be Islamic, because not being Islamic is blasphemous. Substitute whatever religion, whatever political philosophy, whatever dogma or doctrine in place of Muslim/Islam in that equation, and soon the world ends up a miserable place.

I'm not saying limit it, not at all. Let people say whatever they like. I'm just saying we should not tolerate people using it to spread hate or as a shield for their stupidity. Those people should have to face whatever consequences society deems appropriate for such unacceptable actions. I see no difference between deliberately or negligently hurting someone physically and doing so verbally. If you say something which is deliberately designed to be offensive or which any reasonable person could reasonably see would cause offence, you have to expect legal consequences. Recent examples in this country include people being successfully prosecuted for social media posts which contain racist comments about Olympians or joke about murdered 5 year olds. By way of the contrast, the ridiculous prosecution of a man who joked in frustration about bombing an airport was (eventually) thrown out. These expressed the general sentiment of the British public that whilst we should never stop people from speaking out, people have to take some responsibility for what they say. TBH, my signature pretty much sums up my view on this far more eloquently than I ever could.

[Sean_OBrien]

If you say something which is deliberately designed to be offensive or which any reasonable person could reasonably see would cause offence, you have to expect legal consequences.

That is sort of the definition of NOT-free speech.

Racism, jokes about dead kids or anything else being prosecuted is not free speech. Speech which offends is the speech which needs to be protected, if no one would object to it...it doesn't need protecting.

I forget who it was who said it first (and with my addled mind they likely said it better than I) - but the answer to free speech that offends is not a law to prevent it, rather more free speech.

On the other hand - there are specific limits to free speech in the US at least. Incitement is illegal - that goes back to the whole yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. In that regard though, it isn't a limit on speech that offends or might reasonably be assumed to cause a block of individuals to riot in the streets. However, it limits proximity and immediate effect of the speech. If I were to try to rile up a lynch mob and go drag a child molester out of his house...that would not be protected free speech. However, saying child molesters ought to be hanged is free speech and is protected.

In the same way, if I were to go into a Mosque...take a leak on a Koran and then burn it - that would not be free speech, as the predicted response to that action would be violent. However, if I were to video tape myself doing that same thing and post it on YouTube...it would be free speech. There is no immediate emotional response. It may well cause riots and have a fatwa issued against me, however those actions are outside the incitement limitation of free speech (at least in the US).
________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU&feature=player_embedded#! - Not sure if he was the first to say the line, but he does say it well enough. Watch all three parts, 22 minutes which are worth while.

[Wildeybeast]

Racism, jokes about dead kids or anything else being prosecuted is not free speech. Speech which offends is the speech which needs to be protected, if no one would object to it...it doesn't need protecting.

If it is part of reasoned debate, then fair enough. I see absolutely no reason to protect idiots and hate mongers. I also don't see why free speech should be held above other human rights.


In the same way, if I were to go into a Mosque...take a leak on a Koran and then burn it - that would not be free speech, as the predicted response to that action would be violent. However, if I were to video tape myself doing that same thing and post it on YouTube...it would be free speech. There is no immediate emotional response. It may well cause riots and have a fatwa issued against me, however those actions are outside the incitement limitation of free speech (at least in the US).

Sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous, it's the same bloody thing. Either way it is an intolerant and hateful act deliberately designed to incite a response. Suggesting that because no one saw you do it in person makes it ok or in some way different is frankly laughable.

[Sean_OBrien]

If it is part of reasoned debate, then fair enough. I see absolutely no reason to protect idiots and hate mongers. I also don't see why free speech should be held above other human rights.

Which human right? Calling you or anyone else a name - or belittling their religious or other beliefs does not impact their human rights. They still have the exact same rights as they had before hand, as I don't recall a right to not be offended.


Sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous, it's the same bloody thing. Either way it is an intolerant and hateful act deliberately designed to incite a response. Suggesting that because no one saw you do it in person makes it ok or in some way different is frankly laughable.

Far from the same thing. In one case the response is immediate and visceral (when done in front of someone). In the second instance, the response has to be thought out. They have to hunt me down. The suggestion is not that one isn't intended to be intolerant or hateful speech - in fact the second may well be more hateful and part of an extend campaign of different ways to insult the religion. However, the key factor is within that immediate response. The law doesn't prohibit being hateful, intolerant or dumb - simply inciting harm from happening.

Oddly enough though, doing the same thing to a Catholic Church would likely be held as free speech even if done in person as the immediate response from the Catholics would likely not be to kill a person who burned the Bible in front of them. They may be greatly offended by the action, but tend to be civilized enough to understand that you do not react to an offense like that by killing someone.

In fact the entirety of the Westboro baptist church functions under that same protection. The proper response is not to limit their speech - but have more free speech. In the Westboro case, you have the counter point in the Patriot Guard Riders.

The courts have put the limit to free speech as proximal to causing immediate harm...not on the speech itself. You can say hateful things all you want, however if you say hateful things in front of someone who a reasonable person could expect a violent (or other harmful) response then that very narrow instance is not protected.

You seem hung up on the Muslim issue and miss the child molester example beforehand (which is set of variables). Perhaps another example will help...

We all know you can't yell fire in an crowded theater - the expected result is a mad rush for the limited number of exits which can lead to bodily harm to those who try to get out. However, there is no limit to yelling fire outside of that closed in environment. You could in fact yell fire at an open air concert even though the same expected response might happen (that the various attendants would scatter out of the venue). However, in the efforts to escape the non-existent fire - there are no doors to get stuck in and potentially trampled. It would be inconvenient for those involved, but little to no risk of injury.

[Wildeybeast]

Article 1 & 12 would seem to be pretty relevant here. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

As to your argument on the Catholic Church, that is simply double standards and failing to apply the law equally if that happens.

I don't know how the law in the US works, but over here, the actual method for committing the offence doesn't matter, what matters is whether in 'free speech/offence' cases there is intent to offend. Whether you do it in person, online, in a pamphlet or hiring a sky writer makes absolutely no difference. Whether offence is taken is a secondary concern. I'm quite happy with that situation, as are most of the population.

[DarkLink]

If it is part of reasoned debate, then fair enough. I see absolutely no reason to protect idiots and hate mongers. I also don't see why free speech should be held above other human rights.

The right to not be criticized is not actually a right. When you allow the things you are talking about, censorship and legal retribution based on random arbitrary restrictions to free speech, then you no longer have free speech and you can be arrested and thrown in prison for literally anything you say.

If you can't understand that, look at third world countries where exactly that happens on a regular basis. Like the case not too long ago where they tried to throw a mentally handi-capped kid in prison because the kid supposedly burned a Koran, and burning a Koran is offensive to Muslims. The kid only got off because the found that a cleric framed the kid for reasons I forget. (I'm not trying to specifically target Islam here, they just provide so many examples).

And don't even get started on the repression of alternative religions in the middle east. Ultimately, it's all precisely because these people don't believe others have free speech, and that they must force others to do and say what they want.



Sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous, it's the same bloody thing. Either way it is an intolerant and hateful act deliberately designed to incite a response. Suggesting that because no one saw you do it in person makes it ok or in some way different is frankly laughable.

While his example wasn't phrased particularly well, he's absolutely right, and this is how the law works. Basically the only free speech that is denied is speech to incite immediate violence. That's a lengthy discussion for a first amendment lawyer.

Since you don't seem to understand what free speech is, or why it is so important, I'll refer you to the blog I linked to earlier, popehat.com. He's posted examples and cases of precisely why just about any type of speech is either free speech or not, and why that free speech should be protected even if it seems morally reprehensible. He even recently had a series of examples on how pathetic UK's lack of support for free speech can be.

[Sean_OBrien]

Article 1 & 12 would seem to be pretty relevant here. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

And that is the great part of being able to say the UN can go stuff themselves. However, neither of those articles prevent you from being offended.

Saying that you should act nicely is not a statement of rights or responsibilities. It is merely a bright eyed ideal which is unachievable. Yes, people should be nice. People are not nice. Get over it.

Article 12 deals with privacy, family, home, correspondence and people who are interfering with it. It then goes on to say that they have the right to not be attacked regarding their honor or reputation. An offensive statement against a religion is not an attack against personal honor or reputation. More importantly though, the clause is there to provide an equal protection position with regard to seeking remedys against the attacks (that would be libel and defamation laws - which do not come into play when expressing an opinion about a religion).

Whether or not most people are happy with the system in the UK and else where is not something that I can speak to - they may be happy with it, or as is often the case they may simply be indifferent and unaware that they do not have unlimited free speech.
________________

Regarding the specifics of a defamation suit, that brings an interesting point to light. In order to be successful, the claim must be false. Calling a girl who works at the Bunny Ranch a whore is not defamation (it might be rude, but it is an accurate description of her occupation)...however calling a female co-worker one could be.

However in the context of the original example, the primary claim is that Islam is not a religion of peace. There were additional factors within the video...however, when it comes to what the expression was - that is it. The resulting response to the video which makes that claim was riots and other rather violent protests across the Islamic world and various Muslim religious leaders calling for the creator of the video to be executed.

A reasonable person, when presented with the evidence would be hard pressed to really say that the video presents a specifically false claim.

[Wildeybeast]

While his example wasn't phrased particularly well, he's absolutely right, and this is how the law works. Basically the only free speech that is denied is speech to incite immediate violence. That's a lengthy discussion for a first amendment lawyer.

Since you don't seem to understand what free speech is, or why it is so important, I'll refer you to the blog I linked to earlier, popehat.com. He's posted examples and cases of precisely why just about any type of speech is either free speech or not, and why that free speech should be protected even if it seems morally reprehensible. He even recently had a series of examples on how pathetic UK's lack of support for free speech can be.

No it's how your law works, not ours. The American conception of freedom, justice and legality is not the only one available, nor is it the 'correct' one. Over here, the maker of that video would be charged with inciting religious hatred and everyone who isn't a right wing Islamaphobe would agree with that course of action. I understand exactly what the human right of free speech is. Article 19 grants you the right to hold and express opinions and ideas without interference. UK law does not in any way stop people from doing that (nor am I suggesting it should), except in cases of invasion of privacy (article 12) or matters of national security. You can say whatever you damn well like, however you like. Article 19 merely grants you the right not to be stopped from expressing those views (say shutting down social media sites, closing newspapers etc). It does not grant you immunity from lawful prosecution by a legitimate government after expressing those views, where those views are in contravention of the laws of the land. I would also contend that some of the hateful examples cited in this thread are stretching the definition of an 'idea or opinion' to the extreme. I am not suggesting the repression of free speech in any way. I am saying that by their very nature, rights come with inherent responsibilities and that those failing to live up to those responsibilities have to expect to deal with the consequences. Free speech does not give you carte blanche to be total arse without any fear of repercussion.

As for the Popehat blog, IIUC he is suggesting that America should stick to it's values of free speech and not accept those views of other nations (like mine). Fair enough. I didn't pick up on anything in there which supported your view that the American ideal of free speech is the only one which is valid, he simply said it was the one for him. The only references he made to the UK attitude were the views of student union in one university (hardly indicative of a whole nation) and reference to a film which was banned twenty years ago. If you read the link (http://ca.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idCATRE80U1M120120131), you'd see that we had in fact repealed the old blasphemy laws which is precisely why the film could now be classified, something he fails to highlight because it doesn't support his view. I'd suggest you read the article a little more carefully and with a more open mind. Your suggestion that our laws and views on free speech, made by a legitimate, democratic government, are incorrect because they don't agree with yours, is exactly the sort of rank arrogance which generates so much anti-American sentiment around the world. Your society has your views on it and we have ours. Neither is correct. We both uphold the basic principle as expressed in the UNUDHR, we just place greater value on the responsibilities that come with it. I see little point in any of us wasting any more time on a circular debate.

[Sean_OBrien]

It does not grant you immunity from lawful prosecution by a legitimate government after expressing those views, where those views are in contravention of the laws of the land.

But that is not free speech.

Governments can't prevent anything from happening, they only react after it happens. How they react after it happens will determine whether or not that action is free or not free.

The government doesn't prevent people from shoplifting. They only react after someone does shoplift. The fear of that reaction and general decency prevent good people from shoplifting.

[Wildeybeast]

But that is not free speech.

Governments can't prevent anything from happening, they only react after it happens. How they react after it happens will determine whether or not that action is free or not free.

The government doesn't prevent people from shoplifting. They only react after someone does shoplift. The fear of that reaction and general decency prevent good people from shoplifting.

What? Of course they can. Exhibit A would be China's restriction of exactly what internet access people have. Exhibit B would be various nations shutting down mobile phone networks shutting down during the Arab spring. This is in violation of the DHR. Our prosecutions are generally not (and we know this because the EU would overrule them when they are).

[Sean_OBrien]

What? Of course they can. Exhibit A would be China's restriction of exactly what internet access people have. Exhibit B would be various nations shutting down mobile phone networks shutting down during the Arab spring. This is in violation of the DHR. Our prosecutions are generally not (and we know this because the EU would overrule them when they are).

You are confusing censorship which preempts speech and the fear of prosecution which is is a chilling effect on free speech. Both have the same effect, as you are limiting the free exchange of ideas by intimidating those who would offer up controversial ideas with the threat of imprisonment.

Regarding the EU and the DHR...governments have a vested interest in limiting or completely stopping free speech. Just because a governmental body doesn't object to a different government restricting free speech is not evidence that there is no restriction to free speech. Each of the member states as well as the EU at large have a vested interest in limiting and preventing free expression.

Having a bit of time to poke about in the minds of the British people, it would seem that they are not on a whole nearly as happy with their limited free speech as you are. Quite recently the Chief Crown Prosecutor (apparently about the equivalent of the US Attorney General) said that is was important to protect the right to be offensive in order to avoid a chilling effect on free speech (pretty much what I stated above):

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19910865

My spiders also pulled up thousands of blog posts, Facebook rants and editorials which held similar positions tied to the UK (either through location or DNS information). If no one is allowed to say anything disagreeable (without fear of criminal prosecution) then what is the point?

http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/49624/rowan-atkinson-and-fry-back-campaign-make-insults-legal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9605045/What-a-shocking-week-its-been-for-free-speech.html

http://libertylawsite.org/2012/04/03/freedom-of-speech-wanes-in-britain/

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=1205796&mid=0&i=0&nmt=Free+Speech+%28in+the+UK%29+an+Oxymoron%3F&mid=0

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/06/15/free-speech-are-we-getting-balance-right-you-spoke/

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/general-principles/the-jackboot-stomping-on-the-throat-of-free-speech

[wittdooley]

You know what else is an unalienable human right? The right to have your feelings hurt and to then act like an adult and get over it.

I mean Christ. I've had enough of this political correctness bullshyte.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

These Yank vs. Brits threads are interesting and illustrative, but both sides often seem to talk right past each other. As an American myself the impression I generally have is that the Brits get more worked up about things in the States than the other way around. Especially Eldar Gal who is quick to skew anything non-British and then explain later (presumably when she chills) that she wasn't being anti-American, anti-Argentinian, anti-Klingon, whatever. Some of her best friends are Klingons, she's been to Kronos, she loves Klingon Opera she just disagrees with their foreign policy, culture, D-7 ship designs, etc. etc.

I admit though that I'm probably seeing it more from my perspective and this skews my vision.

I think many Americans tend to forget...no, wrong word because they never knew in the first place...Americans tend to not know that other nations have any constitutional rights and liberties at all. They thus assume they are the only ones with truly free speech and anyone else who does not have absolute freedom thereof is living in a mild dictatorship. Believe it or not my fellow Americans, but much of our Bill of Rights comes from the earlier English Bill of Rights and our Constitution was heavily influenced by the French (yes, French) Enlightenment.

On the other hands some Brits seem to think we are utterly beholden to our written constitution beyond all reasonable logic. To a degree they are correct but they miss the fact that the constitution is quite literally the main glue holding this massive North American mega-state together. Don't kid yourselves, it really would not take much to tear this place into smaller chunks. It has happened before and it could happen again. Five minutes after break-up the smaller successor republics would be at war with each other and with our neighbors to the north and south. The Mexicans and Canadians think we're bullies now? They haven't seen squat. I would think with Scotland ready to bail that the possibility of other unions coming apart would not be lost on our English friends in particular.

So yes, we are religiously obsessed with free speech and pardon us if we love South Park and our right to make ***** of ourselves and offend many people in the process. Perhaps we are like your internal Id to a degree and you secretly might like to engage in such behavior. Wouldn't you too like to be able to call Tom Cruise whatever you want in print and not face a liable suit for it? On the other hand, maybe it is the French political lineage (Voltaire's defend to the death and all that) rather than the English which accounts for our stubbornness in the free speech category.

But would you really want us any other way?

[DarkLink]

No it's how your law works, not ours.

Hence why I'm glad that I live in America, as far as this is concerned.

[Sean_OBrien]

our Constitution was heavily influenced by the French (yes, French) Enlightenment.

Yes, but that was the old French - not the new French. The new French seem to have given up the will to live. Personally I blame it on mimes...though I have nothing specific to back up that claim.

[eldargal]

The D-7 is an ugly piece of rubbish, especially compared to the classic profile of the D12 or K'vort bird of prey or the masculine power of the vor'cha attack cruiser.

Um, I mean, what's a Klingon?


Especially Eldar Gal who is quick to skew anything non-British and then explain later (presumably when she chills) that she wasn't being anti-American, anti-Argentinian, anti-Klingon, whatever. Some of her best friends are Klingons, she's been to Kronos, she loves Klingon Opera she just disagrees with their foreign policy, culture, D-7 ship designs, etc. etc.
Actually it isn't that, not always anyway. Sometimes I do get a bit worked up and come on a bit strong. I generally try to clarify that just because I disagree with some government policies it doesn't make me anti whatever. I think the Argnetinian government is flat out insane, I'm not anti-Argentina because a good proportion of them agree. I'm not anti-American, I admire a lot about America. I'm just not shy about voicing my dislike of other aspects and I do try and clarify that I'm not some idiot that 'hates America' just because I disagree with one governments foreign policy in parts (most parts to be fair).


Yes, but that was the old French - not the new French. The new French seem to have given up the will to live. Personally I blame it on mimes...though I have nothing specific to back up that claim.
Hardly, the French are one of the least PC and self-hating nations you will find. The only reason they have a bad reputation in America is because they stopped doing whatever you wanted them to do in the 70s or so after brief stint of acquiesence after the Suez Crisis.:p

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

D7?!?!?! ARE YOU MAD?!?!

You have just summoned Cthulhu with your non-euclidean shapes!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dq2xlPqyGoU/TkH7_8_B8_I/AAAAAAAAAdw/NS8TPv4wevg/s1600/cthulhuFB1.jpg

[White Tiger88]

Eldar Gal isnt rude...She's just British......There is a difference ya know! (im part British mind you and everyone says that's why im a jerk...)

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

We're proud to be jerks.

We deserve to be jerks, do you know how much land we had? Screw the Romans, up the British Empire!

Also, who said that EG was rude?

[White Tiger88]

We're proud to be jerks.

We deserve to be jerks, do you know how much land we had? Screw the Romans, up the British Empire!

Also, who said that EG was rude?

Contex of the Klingon Post in theory. Plus i was bored and using her as a British example lets me honest here, all us Brits (even part) are rude to others...but still more respectful then any american. (Except Bigred...He rocks)

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I'm not going to agree or disagree with that post because I detect a backlash of RAGE from American posters.

[White Tiger88]

I'm not going to agree or disagree with that post because I detect a backlash of RAGE from American posters.

Don't worry i have a Rage Shield......its called Beer and Whiskey.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I have a defence against rage too, it's called the Banhammer.

[White Tiger88]

I have a defence against rage too, it's called the Banhammer.

Way to kill a Thread with the Hammer word.......STOP HAMMER TIME!


http://youtu.be/ORcJv-OSJTk

[Wildeybeast]

Don't worry i have a Rage Shield......its called Beer and Whiskey.

You're on beer & whiskey at 8.20 on a Sunday morning?

[Sean_OBrien]

Hardly, the French are one of the least PC and self-hating nations you will find. The only reason they have a bad reputation in America is because they stopped doing whatever you wanted them to do in the 70s or so after brief stint of acquiesence after the Suez Crisis.:p

Nah - I dislike the French because of mimes and Gérard Depardieu. Other than that though - I am largely indifferent regarding them (as a country - their politics I have plenty of opinions on) though I do feel that Paris is one of the more overrated cities in all the world.

[eldargal]

Paris is fantastic if you are female. But I would agree it is overrated, the rest of France is absolutely fantastic and too many people just head straight to Paris an miss out on so much.

I will always have a soft spot for a nation that enshrined fois gras in its constitution to stop EU from banning its manufacture.

[Gotthammer]

I much prefer Italy over France - I am biased though as both times I've been to France have been frought with issues, and both times in Italy have been wonderful.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I still think the D-7 is awesome. My favorite Trek ship. There. I've said it.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Terrible dice though.

[White Tiger88]

Paris is fantastic if you are female. But I would agree it is overrated, the rest of France is absolutely fantastic and too many people just head straight to Paris an miss out on so much.

I will always have a soft spot for a nation that enshrined fois gras in its constitution to stop EU from banning its manufacture.


France, Because white flags need to be made somewhere........ Italy wins any day! mind you i am part Italian....Plus are food is so much better. And this happens in france.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iXGbJKjNxU