• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

Emily's Cat said:
There is a bit of a difference though. In the US, the police cannot compel you to go to the station and talk to them, without some crime having been committed. You can be detained as a person of interest or a material witness to a crime, but even then you aren't obligated to actually speak to them at all - you have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to a lawyer being present during any interaction you have with the cops.

In the UK, you can be compelled to go to the station and talk to the police for a "non-crime incident". You've committed no crime, but you are still required to go to the station and interact with the police. If you fail to do so, then you can be arrested.
Click to expand...
In the USA, if there is no probable cause that you have committed a crime, police cannot detain you or arrest you or compel you to go anywhere.

That is how a country that believes in freedom actually behaves.
 
Steve said:
That horse has left the barn. There is nowhere on the planet where freedom of speech is absolute. And actually there never was regardless of the rhetoric emanating from the USA. And the USA, among other countries, is busily redefining the limits of that freedom. It will eventually be recognized that true democracies have more reasonable limits than other forms of government, including republics that invest way too much power in their heads of state.
Click to expand...
Nobody has claimed it's absolute. That said, in the US - even today - libel and slander are civil actions, brought by one citizen against another. The government cannot prosecute libel or slander against a citizen. Incitement to violence is about the only speech that can be criminally prosecuted, and the bar is usually high. Over the past decade or so, that bar has been lowering... but the rhetoric insinuating violence has also been increasing. I don't know where a balance point will be reached.
 
Emily's Cat said:
In the UK, you can be compelled to go to the station and talk to the police for a "non-crime incident". You've committed no crime, but you are still required to go to the station and interact with the police. If you fail to do so, then you can be arrested.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
Thermal said:
*unfurls Vexillology flag in protest*
Click to expand...
I like flags, I like exploring their history, their meaning, their evolution, the histories they record - but ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, wankers and shitbrains keep commandeering them. Jingoists, xenophobes and racists keep commandeering them. The worst ◊◊◊◊◊ can't stop appropriating, defiling, misunderstanding, abusing and weaponising flags.

When you can buy your flag as underwear it has lost all meaning.
 
junkshop said:
I like flags, I like exploring their history, their meaning, their evolution, the histories they record - but ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, wankers and shitbrains keep commandeering them. Jingoists, xenophobes and racists keep commandeering them. The worst ◊◊◊◊◊ can't stop appropriating, defiling, misunderstanding, abusing and weaponising flags.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's gotten to the point in the States that if you have a flag up on Independence Day, you are suspected of being a Trump supporter. Over the summer in my town, the Rotary Club (civic group) got permission to sell full sized flags to mount on staffs in the town park. I'm talking dozens of them, about 8 feet apart in a grid across half an acre, and they were supposed to be down right after Independence Day, but they stayed up another 6 weeks. It was obnoxious.
junkshop said:
When you can buy your flag as underwear it has lost all meaning.
Click to expand...
Bad time to show you my Gadsten banana hammocks?
 
zooterkin said:
Source?
Click to expand...
www.gov.uk

Police powers of arrest: your rights

The police's power of arrest and your rights - procedures, identification, reasonable force
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
​
To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary.​
The police have powers to arrest you anywhere and at any time, including on the street, at home or at work.​

Police cannot force you to go to the Station with them, unless they arrest you. However, all they have to do is say they suspect you of posting a hurty tweet that they consider breaks the law, then they can handcuff you, place you under arrest and force you to accompany them.
Even if it later turns out to have been a false arrest, and you end up suing them... it's too late. They have put you through the wringer of the arrest and detention process... remember, that process IS the punishment!
 
Hercules56 said:
No, you have not. I looked all on page four and five and you never have tried to explain why you think displaying the Nazi flag
should be seen as a threat of violence, but displaying the Hezbollah or Hamas flag should be okay.

Considering the history of very deadly violence against innocent civilians committed by Hezbollah and Hamas I can see no logical reason to view them any different than waving a Nazi flag.
Click to expand...
1) Yes I did
2) To the highlighted part - I have never made that claim/argument.
 
Hercules56 said:
In the USA, if there is no probable cause that you have committed a crime,
police cannot detain you or arrest you or compel you to go anywhere.

That is how a country that believes in freedom actually behaves.
Click to expand...
Yes they can, and given today's technology you can watch hundreds of body cams from the police on YouTube when they detain someone.
 
Hercules56 said:
In the USA, if there is no probable cause that you have committed a crime, police cannot detain you or arrest you or compel you to go anywhere.
Click to expand...
Google "Terry Stop", home boy. An American cop, for literally generations now, can detain you on a far lower bar than probable cause. He just needs reasonable suspicion, which ain't much of dick.
Hercules56 said:
That is how a country that believes in freedom actually behaves.
Click to expand...
Then we don't believe in freedom. That was easy.
 
Thermal said:
Google "Terry Stop", home boy. An American cop, for literally generations now, can detain you on a far lower bar than probable cause. He just needs reasonable suspicion, which ain't much of dick.

Then we don't believe in freedom. That was easy.
Click to expand...
This is true, they can detain you for a limited amount of time IF you fit the description of a known criminal.

But if they find no probable cause, they must let you go.

And you have the right to remain silent.
 
Hercules56 said:
No, you have not. I looked all on page four and five and you never have tried to explain why you think displaying the Nazi flag should be seen as a threat of violence, but displaying the Hezbollah or Hamas flag should be okay.

Considering the history of very deadly violence against innocent civilians committed by Hezbollah and Hamas I can see no logical reason to view them any different than waving a Nazi flag.
Click to expand...
@Darat, you gonna respond to this or plead the 5th? ;)
 
Thermal said:
Agreed. It's gotten to the point in the States that if you have a flag up on Independence Day, you are suspected of being a Trump supporter. Over the summer in my town, the Rotary Club (civic group) got permission to sell full sized flags to mount on staffs in the town park. I'm talking dozens of them, about 8 feet apart in a grid across half an acre, and they were supposed to be down right after Independence Day, but they stayed up another 6 weeks. It was obnoxious.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it is/was the same in the US, but when I was a child there was an unspecified, but well understood, contextual difference in the displaying of flags (especially the St. George's Cross). There was the benign and inclusive official use (St. George's day, may day, carnivals, armistice/remembrance day, &c), and the there were the racist ◊◊◊◊◊: BNP marches, NF marches, so on and so forth.

The flag was reclaimed as an good and inclusive-ish thing in the 90s with the 'cool britannia' thing, or at least there was an attempt made. Unfortunately the rebirth of a more media savvy far-right cuntiverse started then, too.

I had point, but I seem to have lost it.*
Thermal said:
Bad time to show you my Gadsten banana hammocks?
Click to expand...
Never.


*ETA: along with basic syntax and grammar, apparently.
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
I don't know if it is/was the same in the US, but when I was a child there was an unspecified, but well understood, contextual difference in the displaying of flags (especially the St. George's Cross). There was the benign and inclusive official use (St. George's day, may day, carnivals, armistice/remembrance day, &c), and the there were the racist ◊◊◊◊◊: BNP marches, NF marches, so on and so forth.
Click to expand...
Our ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ didn't take it over till much more recently, like the 2000 teens. You could sport the Stars and Stripes and be seen as nothing but loving your country prior to that, from Jimi Hendrix onward.
junkshop said:
The flag was reclaimed as an good and inclusive-ish thing in the 90s with the 'cool britannia' thing, or at least there was an attempt made. Unfortunately the rebirth of a more media savvy far-right cuntiverse started then, too.

I had point, but I seem to have lost it.*
Click to expand...
You wanted to give Def Leppard mad props for making that sleeveless Union Jack shirt clean again? I had one.
 
Nessie said:
I see the difference between a march designed to intimidate, establish control over an area and politically influence, than one that has no chance of that happening. You seem naive, as if you do not realise there are people who see aggression and fear as a way to achieve their aims.
Click to expand...
I understand that there is risk involved in virtually any protest or march that is politically motivated. I think it's a rare cause that isn't going to get at least some people's knickers in a twist.

The entire purpose of protest marches *is* to politically influence. That's part of why the US has a right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Part of that 1st Am in the US is the right to speak, and to address the government and other voters through that speech. It certainly doesn't give anyone the right to be taken seriously though.

I don't think there's a great answer here. I think it's inappropriate to disallow protests and marches on the basis of them causing some people to feel offended or threatened, even if you might believe that the intent is to intimidate. We've seen many pro-palestine protests in the US over the last couple of years. A whole lot of them have included people chanting intifada propaganda, and a lot of them have taken place in areas with large Jewish populations. I think it's entirely reasonable for those Jewish people to feel intimidated and even threatened by protesters who are quite literally calling for the extermination of Israeli citizens, and who are parroting chants used by Islamic Jihadists. But provided the marchers do not initiate violence or property damage, they still have the right to be as unsavory and insulting as they wish.

If you deny them the equal right to assemble and protest for whatever political topic they wish, on the basis that their topic and their beliefs are offensive, then you open the door to totalitarian control. You make it possible for the next generation to decide what is and is not offensive and shouldn't be tolerated.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Nobody has claimed it's absolute. That said, in the US - even today - libel and slander are civil actions, brought by one citizen against another. The government cannot prosecute libel or slander against a citizen. Incitement to violence is about the only speech that can be criminally prosecuted, and the bar is usually high. Over the past decade or so, that bar has been lowering... but the rhetoric insinuating violence has also been increasing. I don't know where a balance point will be reached.
Click to expand...
Thank you for recognizing my point. Every jurisdiction has restrictions on free speech. Pulling out one particular example in one jurisdiction that a person does not agree with and proclaiming:

"Wow, x has lost freedom of speech"​

is hyperbole of the worst kind. It displays nothing so much as a profound ignorance and is really not worthy of serious discussion.

And, since you bring up the point, in today's USA Trump and his sycophants seem to be finding ways to restrict free speech that have little to do with government prosecution. Declaring an organization whose positions they disagree with to be a "terrorist organization" is just one glaring example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom