Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[catsmate]

Meanwhile, the freedom of speech loving Reform "Party" is getting some pushback for trying to limit the ability of local press to report on local politics -

Nottingham Post launches legal challenge over Reform press ban

Council leader Mick Barton has not spoken to journalists from the Nottingham Post since August.

www.bbc.co.uk

Nottingham County Council's Reform leader was trying institute a ban against the Nottingham Post and reporters linked to the BBC; legal action is being taken against the ban.

Reform being hypocritical? No..........

 

[catsmate]

None of this changes the fact that Britain seems to have a real problem with respecting freedom of speech, and many British people seem to think freedom of speech should be censored if people are offended.

Nor does it alter the fact that other countries don't want the USAian version of "free speech" forced on them.

 

[catsmate]

Again absolute ignorant gibberish.

As I've stated previously, a lot of this nonsense about "free speech" seems to be USAians getting defensive about other countries daring to be different. And not being on course to turn into ◊◊◊◊ holes of ourselves.

 

[Hercules56]

Nor does it alter the fact that other countries don't want the USAian version of "free speech" forced on them.

Our version of Free Speech takes the words seriously. (Unless you're Trump)

I have no idea what you guys mean by it.

 

[Hercules56]

As I've stated previously, a lot of this nonsense about "free speech" seems to be USAians getting defensive about other countries daring to be different. And not being on course to turn into ◊◊◊◊ holes of ourselves.

You can be as different as you want.

I just thought Europeans, especially the UK, took Freedom of Speech seriously.

Seems like I was wrong. You guys seem to value Free Speech until it bothers someone.

 

[lobosrul5]

It's the same as the USA has for civil cases.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't get arrested or questioned by the police in a civil case.

 

[Darat]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't get arrested or questioned by the police in a civil case.

Do You Have a Right to Remain Silent in a Civil Case?

You may have a right to remain silent in a civil case. An Irvine civil litigation lawyer explains Fifth Amendment protections in civil cases.

bc-llp.com

...snip...

This does NOT mean you can refuse to provide answers to questions because they could lead to a jury finding for the opposing party in the civil litigation. What it means is, if your answers to the questions you are being asked could result in you facing criminal prosecution, you do not have to provide the answers. You also do not need to provide answers if the information you would provide could be enough to lead police to evidence that could be used to incriminate you.

In 1997, the 11th Circuit court explained in United States v. Gecas that the threat of future prosecution must actually be “reasonable, real, and appreciable” in order for you to be justified in asserting your Fifth Amendment right. You cannot simply claim you think you might some day be prosecuted for your answers in order to avoid providing information you have been asked about when you are involved in civil litigation.

...snip...

 

[Darat]

Our version of Free Speech takes the words seriously. (Unless you're Trump)

I have no idea what you guys mean by it.

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions
​

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:

• published articles, books or leaflets
• television or radio broadcasting
• works of art
• the internet and social media

The law also protects your freedom to receive information from other people by, for example, being part of an audience or reading a magazine.

...snip...

What the law says​

This text is taken directly from the Human Rights Act.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression​

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 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.

 

[lobosrul5]

Do You Have a Right to Remain Silent in a Civil Case?

You may have a right to remain silent in a civil case. An Irvine civil litigation lawyer explains Fifth Amendment protections in civil cases.

bc-llp.com

You are conflating two different things. No, you don't have 5th amendment rights in a civil suit UNLESS your testimony would incriminate you criminally.

No one is Mirandized for a court appearance. You are Mirandized when being questioned by the police so that what you say during questioning is still admissible.

We simply don't have the language used in the UK about not saying something can hurt your defense if you rely on it later.

 

[Hercules56]

.

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions​

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:

• published articles, books or leaflets
• television or radio broadcasting
• works of art
• the internet and social media

The law also protects your freedom to receive information from other people by, for example, being part of an audience or reading a magazine.

...snip...

What the law says​

This text is taken directly from the Human Rights Act.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression​

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 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.

So why are you guys making flags illegal? Seems to violate Article 10.

Why would someone even think to wonder if its legal to post on Instagram "◊◊◊◊ islam, ◊◊◊◊ palestine, ◊◊◊◊ muslims, go to your own country if you want to protest!"

OBVIOUSLY if you actually believe in freedom of speech, such a statement should be legal.

What's the point of Freedom of Speech if you cant say things that someone, somewhere, might find annoying or offensive?

 

[Darat]

So why are you guys making flags illegal? Seems to violate Article 10.

Which flags are we making illegal?

 

[lobosrul5]

So why are you guys making flags illegal? Seems to violate Article 10.

Well it does say freedoms can be restricted "for the protection of health or morals". Thats a qualifier big enough to drive a truck through.

 

[Hercules56]

Well it does say freedoms can be restricted "for the protection of health or morals". Thats a qualifier big enough to drive a truck through.

So you have freedom of speech, as long as you dont say something "immoral"?

 

[Hercules56]

Which flags are we making illegal?

You've already shown us that the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas are illegal, and YOU have called for the Nazi flag to be illegal.

 

[Hercules56]

You've already shown us that the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas are illegal, and YOU have called for the Nazi flag to be illegal.

I hate all three, find them VERY offensive and they hurt my feelings. But I dont want them to be illegal.

 

[Darat]

You've already shown us that the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas are illegal, and YOU have called for the Nazi flag to be illegal.

Oh right, yep you aren't allowed to support terrorists in the UK. It's not the flags that are illegal.

 

[Hercules56]

Oh right, yep you aren't allowed to support terrorists in the UK. It's not the flags that are illegal.

No, the flags are illegal. Just like how the flag of Palestine is illegal in Israel.

 

[arthwollipot]

Speech you don't like huh?

You ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bet I don't like it. People like you need to understand that stigmatising and dehumanising speech is not acceptable in a civilised society. Should it be illegal? No. Should there be social consequences for such speech? ◊◊◊◊ yes.

 

[junkshop]

So you have freedom of speech, as long as you dont say something "immoral"?

Your government has just declared anyone opposed to fascism to be terrorists, so kindly ◊◊◊◊ off with your bollocks.

 

[Orphia Nay]

UKians don't treat "Freedom of Speech" like a god the way Americans do. Americans don't see the duties that come along with the right to it.

Freedom of speech for you also implies a duty to freedom from harm to others.

That measure of harm is where the law steps in. Surprise, surprise, the UK doesn't have a 1st Amendment. It's different to America. What's the big deal? Cherry picking Daily Mail headlines or Reform Tweets isn't proving the UK is a hellhole.