Clearly to you, perhaps. There are also plenty of plenty of places where, say, denying the Holocaust is illegal. And according to your courts psychological damages can be quite impressive, if I'm to believe some of your lawsuits, so I suppose being insulted or made fun of can do you harm. Not that I agree with any of this, but your argument assumes everyone has the same values as you have.
And I would argue that this is undemocratic/illiberal. But banning one narrow type of speech is still preferable to banning all controversial public speech, which seems to be the direction Britain is heading in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
And I would agree with you, but it's not like this is fundamentally different from the other thread. It's about where a (democratic) society places the bar.
My point is that it stops being a democratic society after a point.
It's not just the type of speech; it's the “place” where the speech occurs. Wonder if Facebook can sue the British gummint for meddlingQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-months.html
In case anyone thought the idiocy was restricted to posting on Facebook/Twitter.
The back would be illegal in a number of countries, though? Insulting an officer is generally not allowed. Anyway, it is a different law altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Insulting a specific officer to his face is not allowed. Insulting the police definitely is. I don't see any specific threat there.
In case anyone thought the street was less public than facebook, or that there was only one lawQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
While on duty, yes. Wearing it and showing it to a cop, on duty, would be insulting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Heaven forfend that people we entrust to enforce the law and protect us have a thick skin.
Wearing a t-shirt saying "one less pig" hours after 2 cops get murdered would be bad enough, but it also on the back arguably could be considered threatening "kill a cop 4 fun.co.uk"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Bad enough in what way? It's highly insulting, sure. You want to make insults illegal? And the second part is so vague that there's no way to constitute it as a specific threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Again there are universally laws regarding certain types of harrassment and the latter could arguably be considered incitement to violence anyway.
But no I don't want insults to be illegal. Currently grossly offensive insults ARE illegal though.
Harassment needs a specific victim, be directed at that victim, and be a whole pattern of behavior. Incitement to violence must be clear in terms of the target and in terms of the threat. There's absolutely no harassment case to be made him. The incitement to violence case would be on incredibly shake grounds.
I wonder how long before criticizing unions or Islamism becomes "grossly offensive". It already is in certain university campuses in Britain.
As soon as possible, hopefully. Then people might go "this is fucking stupid" and roll it back.
The latter already is. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Unless asking for it to be rolled back is also considered grossly offensive. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
We'll have to get meta and say that saying things are grossly offensive is grossly offensive.
I honestly think Britain is slowly headed in that direction. There's little if any public reaction to these ridiculous prosecutions. It's only a matter of time before the government (or some bureaucrats) decide that even stricter restrictions are called for.
You've been sure Britain is about to become a police state for years now, though.
No, I've been saying it's becoming more of one. The kind of prosecutions you're having now would be unthinkable 5 years ago.
Bah humbug, as much as its fun to draw parallels to 1984 the reality is that in this era of the internet there's never been freer or more diverse speech than there is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
20 years ago it was illegal for the TV channels to broadcast IRA/Sinn Fein spokesmen's voices so they would be dubbed with their faces but someone else reading the words.
30 years ago there was only the BBC and a single other TV Channel ITV.
40 years ago the BBC had a monopoly on legal radio.
The Twitter Bomb joke trial, which was sort of the first of the 'incredibly dumb prosecutions over things said on twitter' was in 2009. Three years ago. So I hardly think that's accurate.
That was funny as hell.Quote:
20 years ago it was illegal for the TV channels to broadcast IRA/Sinn Fein spokesmen's voices so they would be dubbed with their faces but someone else reading the words.
There's a slight difference between overreacting against an enemy trying to destroy you and overreacting over any average citizens saying something offensive. As for a lack of TV and radio channels, newspapers still existed (and were far more popular than they are now).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What's inaccurate? You're supporting my statement. This kind of behavior only started 3 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I forget, when did Facebook and Twitter really take off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
People have been saying all kinds of insane stuff on the internet for more than a decade. Myspace and Facebook were pretty big since at least 2006.
And yet who predicted it? The police state comments were always directed at how heavily monitored the British people were, not at how little free speech meant to your government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
That such prosecutions were 'unthinkable' five years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Its not that TV and radio diversity didn't exist due to a lack of technology/demand, they were simply illegal and "pirate radio" like Radio Caroline was fought against. On the subject of radio, punk rock songs that would be positively mild by today's standards (think anything by the Sex Pistols etc) were banned from broadcast years ago. Its possible to hear God Save The Queen (Its a fascist regime) on the radio or online now, unlike before. Just because newspapers existed did not mean that a newspaper would publish "one pig down, kill cops 4 fun" does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Are you seriously saying that there is less free speech today than any era ever before just because ofnewspapers? Seriously?
There is more free speech today than EVER before. New laws are trying to handle people trying to push the limits of that.