[flagged]
mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part...
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In Australia we recently had a proposed law to prohibit information that "potentially undermines faith in the banking sector" regardless of truthfulness.
It's forbidden to kill people. But if you are defending yourself it's not. And if you're a soldier you are indeed required to kill.
It's forbidden to break other people's property - but if you're trying to save somebody's life you can break a window to get to them.
It's illegal to capture and keep people imprisoned. But state can put you in prison no problem.
Etc.
Freedom of speech was never intended to be the only fundamental rule of the society. It's one of many. Being fundamentalist about it is harmful.
In particular what is harmful is abusing it to circumvent other, reasonable rules. In USA the reason oligarchs can pay politicians for their campaigns is because it's classified as "free speech". This is corruption on the highest level of the state legalized with idiotic excuse. It's illegal in most democracies, and for a good reason.
Another example is spreading hate campaigns against minorities. We know what happens if you allow this to go on. We've seen 1930s. We have laws against it - but only for traditional media. Internet is a way to circumvent these rules and good practices.
Just like radio was a way for to-be-totalitarian-rulers to circumvent the establishment in 20s and 30s.
It is an extremely important one though, there's a reason the US founders listed it first.
What often gets missed or misunderstood is who our speech is protected from. It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts. The government isn't supposed to limit our speech in any way, YouTube can limit all it wants unless it treads into gray area where the limits were specifically requested by the government.
If there is a monopoly - what the monopoly owner restricts matters just as much as what the government restricts. More in fact - because youtube has more influence over what people watch than any single government.
These monopolies should be broken up, obviously - but internet is the perfect example of network effects and there's no regulation - so of course it's monopolized to a degree unimaginable before.
Governments should break up such monopolies, obviously - but they aren't, so far.
Considering it a monopoly and putting a higher bar to their moderation policies takes away agency from the public though. We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market. If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere.
The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option. Those with the means could move to another country, but that would only dodge one problem for another. When you live in a country ruled by a single government you can't escape their censorship.
There is - network effect.
> If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere.
They would not, because of network effects. Coordination effort required to jump ship from a billion user website is impossible to overcome. You could have all of Americans stop using youtube, and it would still have more content than whatever competitor they turn towards.
> The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option.
There's more examples of people overthrowing a government than people succesfully boycotting a social media platform once it gets big enough.
I'm not arguing why people choose to use YouTube, I'm arguing that it is a choice. Staying in a country is technically a choice, but as long as you live there you have no choice in your government and can't opt out of their rule.
Its very different. Our speech is protected specifically from government censorship because their control over us is a monopoly by design and their will is enforced through mechanisms like prison and military.
How many youtubes are there? How do I vote for the people running it?
I'm not conflating, I'm abstracting from artificial distinction designed to keep the loophole safe from regulation.
YouTube can censor what they want, you don't have to use it and they can't send police or military after you. You can't move to a land where a single government has control and can send police or military to impose their will on you.
Every democracy will become oligarchy eventually if we don't regulate social media. Most of them won't even be controlled domestically (because the media are global).
There's like 50 people who decide 99% of information people consume worldwide. Or at least what algorithm should decide.
These people know what power it gives. That's why it was worth it for Elon to buy Twitter. It was trading money for political power. And there's nothing anybody can do. This IS oligarchy.
I do agree, though, that media plays a large role and (should) hold a strong responsibility for where we end up.
Is "Obscenity" still a thing? I guess some porn must be illegal…
And conversely, North Korea has a constitution that says they also support free speech*. So, you know, look to de facto not just de jure.
* """Article 65 provides that all North Korean citizens have equal rights.[15] Citizens have the right to elect and be elected (Article 66), freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association (Article 67),""" -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea#Ch...
[0] https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20... - Article 35
The anti-protest law update that was passed over the last few years specifically (using the law) curbs the ability to protest freely in public spaces.
It's technically lawful and curbs expression from what it was previously, the same way they are doing it in general, by adding additional laws (or clauses to existing laws) that are intentionally vague so they can make it fit whatever definition they like after the fact.
I'm aware that the legal system is partly based on judicial interpretation etc, but these are so much more vague than previously.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it still curbs freedoms.
incidentally, i think it might have recently been overturned (or has at least been challenged successfully) but the point is , the government pulled some legal shenanigans to curb expression.
another example of the vagueness would be IR35 legislation, again, not debating the pro's and cons, just saying the law is purposely vague when actual guidelines could be provided.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police...
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/un-special-r...
2. But some animals are more equal than others
So super weird that people actually get away with murder still.
The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear.
Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent.
You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot.
I’m ok with that.
Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran, reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam.
Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics.
Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween party.
Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes publicly -https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24513379.sellafield-worke...
Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes between a group on WhatsApp - https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/former-uk-police-officers-s...
It goes on and on.
You may it sound like Coskun threw a Quran into his fireplace and the police kicked his door down and arrested him. You're leaving out that he travelled across the country to burn it outside Turkish consulate in London. The idea that this is "reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam" is you merely repeating punditry.
Likewise, people "being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics" is because they're violating the protective zone around abortion clinics. You can pray all you want but just a little bit over there. You have the entire country to pray for the unborn. Your rights are not being unduly abridged because there's a few 150 meter zones where doing so is considered violating the dignity of others, if not harassing them while they're vulnerable. But of course, this context can be stripped to make a point.
What's the relevance? You can burn a Quran without anyone knowing but if anyone knows then it's forbidden and criminal?
To say using one's freedom of conscience and freedom of expression is beyond the childish "cringe", it's illiberal, dogmatic, and authoritarian.
We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line. It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.
Let's not introduce a straw man: I haven't claimed I'm for unrestricted speech; and let's also not introduce a Nirvana fallacy[0], my position is thus because the world is imperfect, hence freedom of speech is necessary to improve it and as mitigation against its misfortunes and burdens. It actively reduces violence by providing a better way to "win" an argument.
> Would you mind explaining how speech could be harassment and assault and who would decide that?
Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand:
> A person commits an assault if he performs an act (which does not for this purpose include a mere omission to act) by which he intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
Spoken threats are an obvious one, so is shouting at someone in the manner that would lead a reasonable person to feel threatened.
Harassment is also easy to understand:
> The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 indicates that someone’s actions amount to harassment when they make the victim feel distressed, humiliated, threatened or fearful of further violence. The main goal of harassment is to persuade victims either not to do something that they are entitled or required to do or to do something that they are not obliged to do. Actions listed under the Protection from Harassment Act include, but are not limited to:
> phone calls > letters > emails > visits > stalking > verbal abuse of any kind, including on social media > threats > damage to property > bodily harm
You can see several types of speech in there.
> And I'm presuming that you're okay with libel and slander being decided in a Court of Law
You're contradicting your earlier straw man now, you have no such presumption. I do, however, support defamation as a civl tort (though not how it is currently instituted in the UK, the US has a much saner implementation).
> We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line.
I'm glad you've caught up.
> It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.
Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people, and you're justifying it. So the argument goes: their offence is justified, their violence is inevitable, hence, we should stop the speech.
Have you considered allowing the speech and punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings? Would that not be peaceful co-existence?
> the reality is that peaceful co-existence requires intolerance of intolerance
Popper defined, in his "paradox of tolerance" two simple tests for telling an intolerant group:
- They shun debate.
- They turn to violence.
You've picked the wrong group to criminalise.
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. - The Open Society and Its Enemies
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault
As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society. Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation. How hate speech in defined in law very much mirrors the definitions of harassment and assault (which you appear to have no issue with): it is not mere offence and intent is necessary.
> you have no such presumption
Don't I? Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.
> Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people
This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence. It's also an extremely American phrase used there to dismiss calls for gun control. I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.
> Have you considered allowing the speech and punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?
Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.
> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
It's interesting that you would quote this because I very much agree: for as long as rational argument is able to counter intolerance, that's all we need, and anything further is not just unnecessary but detrimental. But when rational argument becomes ineffective, as we've seen, then rational argument cannot be solely relied upon. In an age of misinformation and disinformation, the notion of 'just add more speech, that'll solve everything' is not only exceptionally naive but demonstrably ignorant. One need only look at America to see what being the freeze peachiest country gets you. The UK and the rest of Europe have speech restrictions like hate-speech laws because we have intimate knowledge of the devastation of unrestrained hate. Hate cannot be reliably restrained by speech. You may find a case here and there, but it cannot stop a mob.
---
If I may make a comparison here, the murder of the CEO of United Healthcare has seemingly opened many people's eyes to society's tolerance of state-sanction death through delays, denials, and deposals, compared to society's extreme horror at a rich person getting gunned down. And yes, them being rich matters: I'm reminded of the sheer difference in effort there was between finding the doomed Titan submersible and finding the lost workers from the Francis Scott Key Bridge collision and collapse. Notice also Mangione's perp walk: you don't get that kind of display when the gunned-down victim is poor.
What I'm getting at here is that many people in society turn a blind eye to the death and misery caused by the system. He's not able to afford his medicine and died? He should've picked a better healthcare package or changed providers. The system is given infinite grace. But when [allegedly] Mangione shot that CEO, the notion that there may have been any justification for it is out of the question. He is infinitely wrong. It was odd watching news coverage of the shooting and how they tip-toed around trying to talk about this, compared to the typical US brazenness with every other topic.
This is circling back to your "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to, and I'm probably right, but I very much feel like you're doing what I described above, here. It's giving "milkshakes are cement".
and
> Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.
Are the same question. His name is Moussa Kadri[0], the person who brandished the weapon (actus reus)in order to physically harm another (mens rea).
The man he attacked, the one whom you would criminalise, what was his mens rea?
> > Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand
Firstly, you've missed the point about that. It being an old law does not necessarily make it a good law (though it is), it means that a) that you should have heard of it, and b) it has a lot of case law, as I pointed out. That's who decides, precedent set by the common people using the common law.
> As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society.
Equivocation, and cowardice I might add, I won't see you banning a whole host of harmful material, like that which was burnt. Regardless, violence against people for exercising freedoms is harmful to society, which is why they're often talked about and pushed to become rights, they're that fundamental. Freedom of speech, expression, conscience and religion are liberal values that distinguish societies with them from those that don't have them, like ones with blasphemy laws.
> Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation.
We "moved on" from blasphemy laws by relentlessly criticising, arguing with, mocking and deriding those who supported them, along with their ideas. Sometimes that speech was free, sometimes it wasn't.
Now, blasphemy laws are back, increasingly, that is the point. We haven't moved on if we're slowly reintroducing them, and regardless of that, freedom of speech protects minorities from attack and dehumanisation. Not only do societies with more freedom of speech have greater safety and opportunity for minorities than those without, freedom of speech is a right that the rich and powerful almost always have, giving it to the poor, weak, or just to any individual gives them strength - the individual being the ultimate minority.
> > you have no such presumption
> Don't I?
Quite obviously not.
> <u>Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.</u>
Arrogance isn't overconfidence, it's not listening, which is why you've repeated the straw man from your previous reply. If a purist is one who supports the laws of assault, harassment, and defamation while not criminalising other forms of speech, then I'm a purist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In fact, I support the burning of a Quran and its printing (even though it contains what you would deem hate speech, if you were to be principled about it).
> > Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people
> This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence.
The US defines the test for this as whether a threat is "credible" and "imminent" (see Brandenburg v. Ohio[1]). Very sensible.
> It's also an extremely American phrase
The logical form of an argument has Americanness? No, logical form can be removed from its original context and reapplied to other matters, as in this case - where does the responsibility lie, the victim, the inanimate object, or the attacker? Watch:
"He burnt a Quran, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?"
"She was on her own at night in a short skirt, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?" You'll find some justification for that in the Quran, so I shouldn't be surprised that you've taken the position you have.
> used there to dismiss calls for gun control.
They have gun control, it's all about where to draw the line ;) The UK government decided to take away the right to arm oneself for self defence, which is allowing them to continue to remove other rights. As Frederick Douglass wrote[2]:
“the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country”
> I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.
Challenging something can tame it. Not challenging it allows it to burn. As an example, due to blasphemy laws[3] and hate speech laws[4] in the Weimar Republic, the anti-semitism coming from the pulpit wasn't able to be challenged, and repression of the speech of national socialists also removed that chance, while affording them fame and access to two-tier justice:
> And while hate speech cases were prosecuted, the vast majority of assaults on Jews weren’t.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and isn't it also ironic that those who would want to institute "hate" speech laws the most, who hide behind them at the first hint of criticism, are the ones actually committing violence. Between knifing someone and burning a book, I know which needs to be criminalised. Why don't you? To quote from [4]:
“Where are your priorities, ladies and gentleman? You're giving away what's most precious in your society and you're giving it away without a fight, and you're even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it.
Shame on you while you do this.”
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r57n2qvzqo
[1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/incitement-to-immine...
[2] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/lobb-the-life-and-times-o...
[3] https://newrepublic.com/article/120519/tyranny-silence-how-o...
You seem to be unaware of the violence, subjugation and rape that women are experiencing in societies, en masse, where that logical form is prevalent and accepted. Or, you're waving it away because, like all collectivists, the rights of any group are ignored in the "progression" towards utopia. The ends justify the means.
> Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again, see America)
You mean, that place that, since its inception, unlike the rest of the world except for the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ (what could link those, I wonder?) and the Swiss, that has never had a totalitarian or fascist government? The one with among the greatest freedoms on the entire planet?
Good discussion.
Wasn't just for burning a Quran though? He was doing it whilst shouting Islamophobic abuse outside the Turkish embassy.
"[Judge McGarva] said that burning a religious book, although offensive to some, was not necessarily disorderly, but that other factors (including Islamophobic comments made in police interviews) made it so on this occasion."[0]
> Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics.
I could only find three - two had their charges dropped[1] and one was charged for not leaving a safe zone after being advised[2] (not silently praying.)
> Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween party.
Definitely agree that one would have been better as a warning not to be such a twat rather than arrest and conviction.
> Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes publicly
> Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes between a group on WhatsApp
"offensive" is doing a lot of work there given they were, in the first case, "racially aggravated online social media posts linked to national civil unrest" and, in the second case, just plain racist.
I'm ok with racist content being policed, personally?
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9v4e0z9r8o
Which is it?
e.g. the people being arrested for silent praying (wasn't it just two people?) were breaching specific PSPOs that are specifically designed to provide a safe buffer zone around abortion clinics so that people can receive their health services (i.e. abortion and related services) without fear of being harassed. By stating "silent praying", you make it look as thought they weren't being deliberately provocative in order to make a protest - the exact type of thing that the PSPO is designed to protect against.
So what?
>make people feel in fear for their own safety.
Private chats and bad taste Halloween costumes are designed to make people fear for their own safety?
At least you're honest about your censorship and oppression of anything anyone dislikes.
I don't know what you're on about with Halloween costumes - I can't see the relevance. Are there PSPOs designed to prevent scary costumes and has anyone been prosecuted for deliberately flouting the PSPO?
But if you compare Zionism to another eerily similar 20th century europe ism, a lot of people will, indeed, complain.
The problem is that the Jewish community in the UK is relatively small and vulnerable and there is the tendency for such discussion to turn ugly and affect the lives of all British Jews regardless of their thoughts on Zionism.
We don’t want you burning Korans outside of mosques and we don’t want you throwing paint at people on their way to temple.
I’m not religious but I don’t want either of those situations. There are more effective ways to help those in trouble than starting pub fights.
Those two things are not the same. The latter is physical assault. The former isn't anything but a statement on faith.
> I’m not religious but I don’t want either of those situations.
I don't see anything wrong in burning a religious book as a public statement. Why, specifically, do you need that banned?
I feel similar to how I feel about fans who taunt opposition fans at football matches.
Some off colour jokes are funny, even when they're in bad taste. They aren't and shouldn't be banned. You hear a commedian saying them on stage and you'd laugh.
Making those same jokes at a football match though has the potential to cause a riot because people's passions are already raised.
I'm not talking about normal banter[1] related to the game or the teams but the dark stuff that crosses the line. I'm sure you can google it if you want examples.
Where the lines are I'm glad I'm not the one to decide.
1. The crumble based memes are some of the best.
(Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone).
No state has a right to exist; people have a right to self-determination, and a state of a particular form, and territorial extent may or may not be an realization of such a right, so even in that minimal framing (which I would say is more the motte Zionists retreat to when challenged than the bailey of the actual substantive meaning of the term in practical use by them), Zionism is a flawed and problematic proposal at best.
I'll try to describe this from my PoV: Zionism, to me, is just jewish-flavored nationalism. To me, the question "has Israel (the state) the right to exist" is almost nonsensical; I don't think that Italy, Germany, France or the US have any inherent "right" to exist, and the same would be true for Israel in my view.
The people that a state governs, however, do have an inherent right to fair representation of their interests (in my view), and this is where Israel often falls short.
There are a lot of non-jews living within Israels borders, and Israel (as a state) fails those people regularly (and, arguably, by design: it does not really want to protect interests of citizens that deviate from that jwewish national identity).
So I think questioning "western logic" with "why should Palestine (the state) have more of a right to exist than Israel?" is unhelpful framing that misses the main point ("citizens have a right to have their interests represented").
I dont think this is well supported, or the source of conflict. The state seems to do a fairly good job of providing for citizens within boarders. Arab Israeli citizens have the right to vote in Israeli elections, run for office, and serve in the Knesset. They make up roughly 1.9 million people (about 20% of Israel's population).
You can argue that these people have civic representational differences as minority group, but this is a very different situation than people living Gaza or the west bank, and their representational rights.
Because to me, those are (somewhat) autonomous regions under Israels control-- so still responsible for people living there.
Nation states influence each other all the time. They threaten, sanction, and impose restrictions, especially when in conflict without invoking responsibility.
Now I agree that isnt a very accurate characterization of this situation. It is much more of an occupation. I still dont think that invokes a responsibility of enfranchisement, but it certain invokes some responsibility for the occupier. The US occupied Japan following WWII, but that doesnt mean Japanese became US citizens, but there are moral obligations.
I model the Palestinian situation as a failed occupation where there is no progress towards end of occupation criteria. Neither party want integration, nor are they ready for peaceful coexistence.
I dont think Israel has a responsibility to enfranchise or integrate, but it does have a obligation to provide and maintain an option for coexistence, and perpetually put real effort towards achieving it. That means giving 2nd, 3rd, or 100th chances.
Whether or not a legally independent state exists with some or all of that territory within its borders, that area is effectively controlled by, and in large part (including all of the West Bank, though the exact administrative details differ in different locations in the WB) under military occupation by, Israel.
It applies to the State of Palestine as much as to the State of Israel, correct.
Of course, while I have heard many arguments for recognition of a State of Palestine with twrritory including some parts of the area bounded by the Mediterranean Sea and the internationally recognized borders of Egypr, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, none of them have been that that State has a “right to exist".
And I haven't, in this discussion, stated a position on whether either Israel-within-some-borders or Palestine-within some-borders are proper realization of the right of self determination of some people living in the area described above. You’ve just assumed a position out of nowhere because I argued that a “right to exist” if the State of Israel is a fundamentally flawed and problematic position, with a reasoning that on its own terms applies equally to the same argument if it were made for the State of Palestine.
FWIW, I think the best realization of the self-determination rights of the people in the region would probably, in the near term at least, involve both a Jewish and a Palestinian Arab State within some borders, a situation to which there are many obstacles, not least of which is Israel’s long (consisting of most of the time since 1968 at least) campaign of genocide against the Palestinian Arab people, callibrated largely to avoid excessive blowback from the West (and particularly the US), with strategies enggaged in to preserve pretexts for continuing and escalating that campaign with reduced resistance, both direct and dippomatic (which includes, among other things, fostering the formation of Islamist network that gree into Hamas to split Palestinian resistance and have a less sympathetic organized opposition during the occupation of Gaza.)
> (Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone)
Unfortunately, the "soldier mindset" (as opposed to scout mindset) is dominant in this case, and I fear suggesting why would be rejected because of that very mindset. So no, the freedom is not there in practice.
"You're with us or against us" kind of thing, but only with the most expansive definition of what counts.
Hate is deadly and useless. Israel is a nation that is tightly bound and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Israeli. Palestine is a nation and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Palestinians. Zionism is the affirmation of the Israelis to be a nation proper. Palestinian identity is the affirmation of Palestinians to be the nation proper. Both things are OK, even if I will be promptly hated by both groups, I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
Brave, and I respect that position.
Myself, I would prefer to carefully phrase things to not get hated. I likely can't be of any help anyway, but I think the chances go down even further if both broader groups hate me equally and think I'm on the opposite team or can't see what the other lot are doing wrong.
> I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
"Orangeman" is a member of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, named for the Dutch William of Orange who took over the UK at the beshest of parliament to support protestantism. William got the name from the principality of Orange, which is named after the city of Orange, which is in France and named after the Celtic word for foread or temple.
They wear the colour orange, even though the colour is named after the fruit (old English grouped this colour under "red"), the fruit being a corruption somewhere in probably-France of "Norange" (hence modern Spanish "naranja"), and before that Arabic.
Back to Dutch Prince William of Orange: The Dutch for the colour is "oranje"; for the fruit is "sinaasappel", literally "Chinese apple", hence the similar (but I'm told distinct species of) fruit with the English name of "mandarin".
Oranges are technically a kind of berry, unlike strawberries which are not.
The zest of an orange is an important ingredient of the mincemeat used in mince pies, which (despite the name) are generally vegetarian.
Words.
Colonialism has always been bad, Israel is clearly no different.
If Palestinians consider themselves a nation, they are a nation, just as we are. Neither of us should try to destroy each other.
And the state of Israel is recognized by other states and the UN.
I won't argue which is more appropriate in this context, but I think that's where the crux of the disagreement is.
A closer analogy would have been some proposals to dissolve the German state forever after WW2, and get its parts annexed by other states. But that didn't happen.
Not to mention that Nazi Germany was actually doing an actual genocide. But that wasn't sufficient to warrant the same fate for them as a nation.
The latter part definitely did. See Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave) and all the parts of Germany that were ceded to Poland.
And the expulsion of ethnic Germans living in non-German lands across Europe postwar was certainly a form of ethnic cleansing, even if you believe it was justified to remove the justification Germany had for prewar annexations like the Sudetenland.
This meme needs to die. You absolutely can shout fire in a crowded theatre. If there is a fire or some other emergency or you have a reasonable belief that there is a fire or other emergency.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Report here: https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publications/pol...
The below from the FSU page:
> However, HMICFRS explicitly found “no conclusive or compelling evidence” that the disorder “was deliberately premeditated and co-ordinated by any specific group or network.” Most offenders were local, often young, and had no ties to extremism. The report also cites the Children’s Commissioner, who similarly concluded that conversations with those arrested “do not support the prevailing narrative… that online misinformation, racism or other right-wing influences were to blame.” Although ‘harmful’ online content may have circulated, the report acknowledges the causal factors were “more complex than were initially evident,” including longstanding social deprivation, loss of trust in policing, and generalised political disaffection.
Found via: https://freespeechunion.org/southport-riot-report-undermines...
In other countries you are allowed to criticize the politicians, but not their policy.
The difference is not that big.
When the Sex Pistols got "God Save The Queen" to number 2 in the charts (despite being widely refused broadcast or sale), the listings just left the number 2 slot blank that week. The band was arrested after performing the song on a boat on the Thames.
Decades later, an MP suggested playing the "God Save The Queen" (also the name of the national anthem) every night on the BBC, patriotically, in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Newsnight* agreed and trolled everyone by playing the Sex Pistols' instead of the anthem.
* "the BBC's news and current affairs programme, providing in-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines" to quote Wikipedia
In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process, but the UK is the one close to a loss of freedom of speech because checks notes you can be convicted in a court of law for actively calling for people to burn down hotels full of immigrants during riots.
This isn't new, of course, I remember some time back I was being told how white people couldn't go into Leicester... while I, a white man, attended University in Leicester.
The UK definitely has issues, even ones related to expression, but generally it's a very free place that does pretty well with respect to it. The US is in a much more dangerous place for freedom of expression right now.
> In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process.
This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You are falling for the same rage bait media (except it is left leaning).
> This isn't new, of course, I remember some time back I was being told how white people couldn't go into Leicester... while I, a white man, attended University in Leicester.
It depends which area of the city. The University will typically safer than other areas of a city. Most of the people there are students and there is campus security.
There are areas of Manchester (where I used to live) and where I am the only English guy (not white, there were Irish people there) on the street. There was significant racial tensions and fights as a result. The guy that bombed the Arianne Grande concert lived a 5 minute walk away. I moved out of Manchester because I didn't feel safe.
Again not a "no-go zone area", but there are problems with racial tensions. I've heard it is worse in some places in London.
> The UK definitely has issues, even ones related to expression, but generally it's a very free place that does pretty well with respect to it.
As someone that lived outside the UK for long periods of time and knew what the country was like before the 2000s. This isn't true.
Actually, most of the illegals being arrested didn't enter the country illegally; they legally entered the country (for example, to file an asylum claim), but for various reasons, they're no longer legally allowed to be in the country.
In any-event, fuck this site because people will flag you/downvote for just disagreeing with someone if it is a politically sensitive topic.
You say it isn't true, but then say "many", so it is true, just not in all cases? Just because others are being deported alongside you doesn't change that you are being sent to a foreign prison for speech, and with no due process anyone can be targeted.
> It depends which area of the city. The University will typically safer than other areas of a city. Most of the people there are students and there is campus security.
What are you talking about? I lived in the city—I rented a house with friends from my second year as most do rather than staying in halls (which are in Oadby), I went out all the time all over the place, as did everyone else. I didn't spend three years locked inside the University.
> As someone that lived outside the UK for long periods of time and knew what the country was like before the 2000s. This isn't true.
Given you are willing to claim it's rage bait media to point out people being extrajudicially imprisoned abroad for speech the admin in the US doesn't like, I'm not going to trust your judgement of how good freedom of expression is.
Reread what they quoted. The statement as a whole is not true, he was correcting the latter part of it that made it false.
And I'm afraid we're long past the point of dismissing police and state overreach into freedom of expression as an "American/right-wing myth". The Julian Foulkes case [1] is just one recent example - and no, the fact that they apologised in this one case, featuring an important person, that received substantial media attention, is not enough to reassure me that it was an error
This is bad, but corrective action was taken. You can look through the news in pretty much any country and find some examples of the police abusing their power or arresting people for stupid reasons. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t bad or that it’s not worth drawing attention to. But cherry picking these kinds of incidents can give people outside the UK a deeply misleading picture of what life is actually like here (see e.g. the green account posting elsewhere in this thread for one example).
Average people from the UK are going to assume that any pushback on speech controls is nutters if the message comes with absurd exaggerations and outright lies. There are legitimate cases of overreach from our legal system, but too often the focus is on someone actively calling for violence, and those are not the same.
As far as I can tell, the comment you replied to did not do any such thing.
Until GCHQ and NSA are properly reigned in, nobody is getting their human rights back.
With the base expectations for the abrogation of human rights being set at global scale by these heinous organizations, which subvert our democracies and corrupt them, there can be no expectation that the broader sphere of local human rights will ever recover from the damage caused.
We cannot fight for a free and open society, when that free and open society is being used to abrogate literally billions of human beings rights outside of our own state borders.
The issue will never leave the commons for as long as the military industrial complex is allowed to violate human rights at immensely despicable scales. The protection many claim are being provided, is a fallacy - the net effect of GCHQ/NSA control over our information and communications systems is, a deleterious effect on our ability to protect our rights at an individual level.
A government which promotes this abrogation of human rights at massive scale is never going to be brought to heel over those same rights being returned, locally - whether British, American, Canadian, Australian or Kiwi...
There's the wording of the law, and then there's the practice of the government. Most communist regimes in Eastern Europe had pretty nice constitutions. It's just that everybody knew it doesn't matter what the constitution says - you complain = you're off to the national variety of a KGB prison.
When your government ignores courts and laws and just deport people as it sees fit for their protesting or their tatoos - you do not have free speech. No matter what your laws say.
BTW - USA arguably didn't have free speech for majority of its existence. If you were a slave you certainly didn't.
---
EDIT: Let's remind ourselves of where FEDERAL freedom of speech comes from. Firstly, of course, is the First Amendment:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You may notice that it doesn't say "free speech is for citizens", but rather that there is a negative-right against Congress from legislating to restrict speech. But what about the President, or the judiciary, or the States? Well, Gitlow v. New York established the following:
> Assumed, for the purposes of the case, that freedom of speech and of the press are among the personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/652/
Judges need to get better at this: it NEVER is just for that case. And so the case set a precedent that the 14th Amendment's due process clause contains within itself a more powerful version of the First Amendment. Now let's remind ourselves of what the due process clause says (with the equal protect clause for good measure):
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now, to quote the notorious RBG:
> Nor shall any State deprive any person, not any citizen. And the choice [in] the word 'person' was quite deliberate. And similarly, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So, the United States constitution surely recognises the fundamental human rights of all persons.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=3925s
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=3712s (timestamp for the question she's responding to)
Now, reasonable people can disagree on whether the due process clause should be so expansive, indeed I find the US's tendency to amend the Constitution via Supreme Court precedent to be deeply troubling, but even under a textualist reading of the First Amendment, the idea that Freedom of Speech in America is limited to citizens is deeply, deeply ignorant.
Welcome to Hacker News, where "curious discussion" is more important than anything else.