Quote from: Miniar on May 05, 2010, 09:49:49 AMWe 'value' freedom of speech, we just also value freedom from slander, libel, and verbal attacks.
In Iceland, it's legal to share your beliefs, but it's not legal to state your (generic you, not directed at any specific person) beliefs that all gay people are disease riddled sinners headed for hell as a fact.

In America they pray for those godless homos right on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with loudspeakers...

Religious Right anti gay May Day event an epic fail

Check out the videos- kind of sounds like hate speech to me. And in the second video- praying to God to forgive Minnesota for electing a Muslim to congress... Where do they find these people?

Chloe, they find us, not the other way around.

Out here in Time Zone Greenwich -8, (Southern California USA), the mere fact that a police officer of any station or rank had been involved in telling some one to get off his ladder and quit blocking traffic would have been classified as a total assault on the persons life, liberty and the happiness of pursuit (err --pursuit of happiness -- nahhh the first was right) by some one of our news sources, and there would have been a good deal of fun and improved family communication at the fast food dinner tables.  This would be true if the officer was gay, trans, lesbian, hetero or into small wildlife (on a microscope slide, small mammals are different).  Even if the cop could have shown the person to the absolutely best and greatest and well paying (OMG PAYING!!!) theater for the performance of whatever, the cop would not win in any media.  One of the best descriptions of this actually came from Great Britain, in the form of Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta, Pirates of Penzance, "A policemans lot is not a happy one...."  If we could find the mismatched temperments of Gilbert and Sullivan to put this article into music and libretto, someone could start a real money making show here.  Being tone deaf, and unable to keep a beat on my eggs, not to mention being a cynical Southern Californian and not a 'Cumbrian" Brit, I am not qualified for that job, but with my tone deafness, could tolerate being in the audience for a short period of time. 

I am in favor of free speech, as long as the person has something to say, which eliminates all street preachers.  I know, because there is one on every one of 8 street corners near where I work. 

This is a link to the Daily Mail so you can get an idea of the sort of fare it provides.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Always good for a laugh. 

Quote from: LordKAT on May 05, 2010, 03:12:46 PM
Chloe, they find us, not the other way around.

well once my surgery is done I'm back to Australia where I belong. It's not that they don't have these kind of people there, it's just that the rest of the people pay them even less attention than they do the politicians lol

Quote from: spacial on May 05, 2010, 03:53:51 PM
This is a link to the Daily Mail so you can get an idea of the sort of fare it provides.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Always good for a laugh. 

:laugh:With the article on the fellow attempting to keep the trucks out of town by repeatedly pushing the CROSS button on the traffic signal, I think I would feel at home there.  Unfortunately, if the truck he tried to stop over here had out of state license plates, he could be arrestedf on a Federal Crime of Interfering with Interstate Traffic!!  That is not going to respond to "right of free speech" as a defense, I know, I had to read the darn case law on that recently.

Quote from: Miniar on May 05, 2010, 09:49:49 AM
I don't think it's a question of value per say.

In all countries, including the US, where freedom of speech exists, there also exists a set of legislation that protects you from libel.
In many of the Europian countries, these laws don't just protect individuals but whole groups of people.

We 'value' freedom of speech, we just also value freedom from slander, libel, and verbal attacks.
In Iceland, it's legal to share your beliefs, but it's not legal to state your (generic you, not directed at any specific person) beliefs that all gay people are disease riddled sinners headed for hell as a fact.

Yes, this was actually sort of my point. It's not a question of "value, per se" (by itself), but of comparative value, the comparison being within a country, not between countries. We Americans (the vast majority of us) value freedom of speech more than Europeans do when compared to our respective value for competing interests. It's a little bit like the theory of comparative advantage in economics, if that helps.

Of course Europeans value freedom of speech, and of course Americans value legal protection against libel and slander (though probably not against verbal attacks). The only meaningful comparison is to see how we deal with situations where those values come into conflict with each other. If a randomly chosen American and a Brit differ on that point regarding a randomly chosen legal conflict, it's a good bet that the American comes down on the side of free speech, and the Brit on protection from libel. Perhaps they agree 99% of the time, but those 1% cases show a distinct pattern, and thus, the relative value. This thread is a perfect example.

The reason I'm belaboring the pointabout relative values is that the way we talk about "values" is a long-standing problem in political discourse that has bothered for me for years. It comes up in America when lazy political pundits talk about "values voters" -- I'm usually in the group that has, by implication, no values. Yeah, Bush did this a lot. It was really annoying.

---

Spacial, thanks for explaining. I snapped at you there too, and I just cringed a bit seeing my last post. So I'm sorry about that too.

Looking into it more, yeah, the only direct sources seem to be the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. The Telegraph article at least makes more sense (e.g., about the role of the PSCO). But yeah, it does seem fishy that there's nothing else. Still, I'd be surprised if it were invented from whole cloth. Staged political stunt, perhaps -- I wouldn't be surprised. In fact I suspected as much from the start, but I don't think we should arrest people for trolling, either.

But ... yeah, I guess it'll get sorted out in court.

The terms "libel" and "slander" can be stretched as well. Libel and slander are not criminal offenses in the U.S. but generally civil where one can be sued for it. However, these generally refer to publishing "a fact" that is untrue about someone not just stating an opinion. If someone wants to call gays a bunch of names, it would be offensive to gays but it is merely that person's opinion. I continue to strongly disagree with those who think that "hate speech" or "offensive speech" should be illegal. There are already laws against harrassment, threats, disturbing the peace, and violence. Simple speech should not be curtailed. If you can't handle hearing something that offends you or that you disagree with, grow up and learn some better emotional management.

Besides, I don't understand how curtailing such speech is "protecting" anyone. Some preacher or even a group of them saying that gays are evil are not directly doing anything harmful to gays. Those same gays could have the same right to say Christians are evil. The only argument that could be used is that such speech could indirectly encourage violence against the group. However, someone who commits violence is ultimately responsible, not the person who said something that put the thought in their mind. Of course that's another thing different about the UK and the US. In the US, minority and at-risk groups can own and carry weapons and often without a permit whereas in the UK self-defense is illegal even if you are being raped and killed.

Again, it comes down to being a citizen or a subject.

Alyssa.

I treated the matter as a joke. I just wish some others, especially in the News Forums, could lighten up a bit.

Looking at this, and knowing how the Daily Mail works, I'm pretty sure the reality is probably along these lines.

McAlpine made some offensive comments. A woman complained to the PSCO. The PSCO spoke to McAlpine and gave him his business card. (In the UK it is customary for police to give people a card bearing their name and the station they are based at). He then reported the matter to the police who decided to arrest the McAlpine.

Subsequently, a quick Google search showed up the PSCOs web page and McAlpine made the rest up.

I am fairly confident that about this, firstly because no PSCO nor Police officer would ever giver personal details about themselves when working. For obvious reasons.

Secondly, three police officers would not have risked their careers by behaving as reported.

Police in the UK have enormous powers. Most laws are written to be very general. Police use their discression before doing anything. Their job is to keep the peace. The letter of the law comes very second place to the spirit of the law. Police will often turn a blind eye or perhaps have a quiet word to offenses which in other circumstances might result in arrest.

It's all about context.

But Police are ordinary citizens as well. They are as concerned about maintaining civil rights as anyone else.

Sadly, over the last 13 or so years, the Daily Mail and some others have continually reported distorted information in their attempts to imply that our country is being destroyed by these incompetant working class types who run the Labour Party.

There is another British paper called the Sun. It is similar to the Mail but tends to regularly publish pictures of naked women and has less claim to being so highbrow.

It ran a campaign claiming that child abusers were getting off lightly because the government is incompetant and soft on crime,implying that people should take the law into their own hands.

They targeted one man, whom they claimed had raped an under 13 year old girl and only served 4 1/2 months. Typical example of this government being soft on crime. They later claimed he had been accused of sexually assaulting a 3 year old girl, the daughter of a barmaid.

The man, Andrew Cunningham, was firebombed out of his home which he shared with his 13 year old daughter. He then moved to a caravan, but eventually, after more reports from the Sun, a gang attacked him there, cut off his genitals then stabbed him in the skull.

No-one has ever been caught for this.

The truth was that, Cunningham had met a girl in a pub. (18 is the minimum age for being in a pub.).

He began a relationship with her even though he was married. Adultry aside.

After a short time, the girl told him she was 15. He ended the relationship immediatly. The girl went to the police and reported him for rape. He was sentenced to 4 1/2 years.

After 4 months, the girl admitted she had lied and Cunningham was released on a reduced charge of having sex with an under 16 year old girl. (16 is the age of conscent in the UK).

The 3 year old girl and the barmaid have never been traced. No report of any such incident has been made to the police. Cunningham's daughter is devastated.

I make these points to demonstrate that the situation here is considerably more fragile than you might think. I am sorry to bring politics into this but this is an entirely political issue.

We have two principal parties, Tory and Labour. The Torys are utterly corrupt. They are bank rolled by criminals and overseas financiers. They are supported by several news papers which have no compunction in lying. Their most prominant MP is a man called William Hague who, when he was leader of the party, persuaded a bunch of trucking companies and organised what he called The People's Fuel Protest. This action almost brought this contry to its knees. Thousands lost their jobs. There was, for a brief time, anarchy on the highways.

Britain is a wonderful country. But it is saddled with an internationally important banking sector. That banking sector is being governed by regulations from the EU. Sensible regulations, designed for the benefit of the common marketplace. But the financiers want freedom. They want to take England out of the EU and set it up as a sort of banking haven where they can do as they like.

The consequences for the ordinary people here will, of course, be devestating. But the financiers have little concern for that.

The Torys don't, at this time, seem prepared to take Britain out of the EU. But it is likely they will be very hostile to it. There are suspicissions that it intends to cause such friction that they can use this as an excuse to take the UK out.

Interesting times.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on May 05, 2010, 11:33:13 PM
Yes, this was actually sort of my point. It's not a question of "value, per se" (by itself), but of comparative value, the comparison being within a country, not between countries. We Americans (the vast majority of us) value freedom of speech more than Europeans do when compared to our respective value for competing interests. It's a little bit like the theory of comparative advantage in economics, if that helps.

Again, it's not about "value" per say. Not comparative value either.
What we view as the purpose of free speech and thus protected by it differs.
The difference isn't "value" it's more along the lines of "definition".

Quote from: Britney_413 on May 06, 2010, 01:27:22 AMBesides, I don't understand how curtailing such speech is "protecting" anyone. Some preacher or even a group of them saying that gays are evil are not directly doing anything harmful to gays. Those same gays could have the same right to say Christians are evil. The only argument that could be used is that such speech could indirectly encourage violence against the group. However, someone who commits violence is ultimately responsible, not the person who said something that put the thought in their mind. Of course that's another thing different about the UK and the US. In the US, minority and at-risk groups can own and carry weapons and often without a permit whereas in the UK self-defense is illegal even if you are being raped and killed.

Again, it comes down to being a citizen or a subject.

Self defense is not illegal, killing in self defense is another matter.

And I disagree with you. A man is responsible for his words as well as his actions.
Someone preaching hate can sway a naive person, or a person seeking acceptance.
Someone preaching hate can also sway someone who's already having a hard time.
In one instance, the person can find the inspiration to pick up a weapon and hurt someone else, the other can find the inspiration to pick up a weapon and hurt themselves.
Words aren't harmless, nor do they come without some measure of responsibility.

Miniar -- We perhaps have a semantic difference about the term "value" in this context. Obviously, it's a word often used to abuse political opponents, and that colors its meaning, so I understand why people might be touchy about it.

But the notion that different people and different cultures hold different values (which you seem to be suggesting, at least with regard to this issue) seems to me to be not merely uncontroversial, but practically tautological. It's something I've certainly experienced even within the United States.

Spacial -- I see where you're coming from. To an outsider, the connection with the election is not terribly pressing, even if it is obvious once you mention it. Still, there's a difference. I would be wary of giving police officers that much latitude in enforcement. There are far too many instances of prejudice and just plain old abuse. But British police certainly have a different reputation. Still, there was an arrest without clear evidence of a crime (no physical violence, no property damaged or stolen, etc.), so I still see it as troubling, despite all you said, pending more information.

I disagree, Miniar. Free speech doesn't need a "purpose." It simply exists. Words can be disruptive but words themselves do not cause violence. There are already laws against disturbing the peace in the U.S. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you start screaming in a restaurant, they may ask you to leave because the other patrons will be upset. When it comes to actual violence, I support personal responsibility. If someone yells "gays are evil," people have the personal responsibility to choose whether or not they continue to listen to that person as well as how they respond (using their own free speech). If someone agrees with the person and then goes out and starts killing gay people, that is their fault, not the sidewalk preacher that said "gays are evil." The other 1,000 people chose to be responsible and ignore his message and one person chose to become a serial killer. You punish people for their actions, not their opinions.

The other problem with regulating free speech is that you are giving power to the government to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not. I don't feel that the government should have that role other than the "disturbing the peace" or "threat" laws already on the books. Not only would it be time consuming and a waste of tax dollars for government to be deciding which speech should be legal and which shouldn't, but it is fascist in nature because you are allowing an authority to essentially decide what personal opinions people are allowed to have. What started out as making "hate speech" illegal gets to the point where anyone disagreeing with the government is breaking the law.

As to self-defense in the UK, none of what I've read about it sounds good. Despite that guns are illegal in the UK along with virtually every other weapon, London and other cities are full of stabbings, shootings, and other violent crime. Plus, the whole "killing in self-defense" thing you mentioned makes no sense. Say someone breaks into your house and grabs a kitchen knife and tries to stab you with it and you pick up a chair and throw it at them but it just so happens that the chair hit them in the head and killed them. In the UK, you would be arrested and convicted of murder. Great justice system. I read an article where this is basically what did happen.

Self defense is not a government-granted privilege but an inalienable right. When you consider how many rapes happen to women, for instance, I can't understand why any woman especially transwomen would be against the right to self defense including the ability to carry weapons for that purpose. The same applies to racial minorities, transmen, and other groups. Yet I consistently notice that the people most likely to need to defend themselves are the ones most commonly against it. It's pretty ridiculous.

Quote from: Britney_413 on May 10, 2010, 02:37:48 AM


As to self-defense in the UK, none of what I've read about it sounds good. Despite that guns are illegal in the UK along with virtually every other weapon, London and other cities are full of stabbings, shootings, and other violent crime. Plus, the whole "killing in self-defense" thing you mentioned makes no sense. Say someone breaks into your house and grabs a kitchen knife and tries to stab you with it and you pick up a chair and throw it at them but it just so happens that the chair hit them in the head and killed them. In the UK, you would be arrested and convicted of murder. Great justice system. I read an article where this is basically what did happen.

You've been watching the NRA propaganda on Fox.

These claims are completely untrue.

There is a lot of violence on Britain's streets and people being killed, including the use of illegal firearms. But nothing even remotely like the levels of violence or gun violence that happens of US streets.

Most of the violence on the streets is related to drug deals and most of the gun crime is between drug gangs. There are exceptions. These are always highlighted in the press, simply because they are so unusual.

Also, if someone breaks into my home, I can use reasonable force to deter them. I can pick up anything to hand, such as the golf club that just happens to be near to my front door. If they die in the process of my defending myself and my property, I will not be prosecuted.

What I cannot do is  chase and attack someone who is running away.

You can also get sued for some one getting hurt breaking into your house or slipping on your sidewalk on the way to break into your house.

Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 03:00:05 AM
You can also get sued for some one getting hurt breaking into your house or slipping on your sidewalk on the way to break into your house.

Nope. Another piece of nonsense.

Not nonsense, happened. Not myth, at least the slip on the way to breaking in one is.

Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 05:07:21 AM
Not nonsense, happened. Not myth, at least the slip on the way to breaking in one is.

No, sorry. Didn't happen and never will.

If you set a trap on your property, anyone injured in that trap can sue, simply because it is illegal to set man traps.

If you put something in a dangerous position, which someone could reasonably be harmed by, that is also illegal under the Duty of Care.

But someone slipping on your path or injuring themselves in any way when they shouldn't be there has no claim at all.

Then you can pay the fine that I had to.

Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 05:15:58 AM
Then you can pay the fine that I had to.

Not in England you didn't.

We have a duty of care to anyone who is reasonably on our property. We cannot set man traps. But those that act recklessly, which includes attempting to break the law are responsible for the results.

never said I was in England