Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[Lukraak_Sisser]

My problem with unrestricted freedom of speech is that it assumes the same form of non-existent utoptia communism assumes.
The US a good case in point. When there were a lot of varying news and media outlets that brought competing viewpoints this worked well.
But now most media is in the hands of a few oligarchs (Murdoch, Musk, Zuckerberg etc) that happily spread open lies, misinformation and outright propaganda without any counterpoint.
At the same time they aggressively police any dissent which gets removed from their media. Musk's 'freedom of speech' on twitter being a very obvious example.
IMO this is a large cause for the MAGA wins, as the myth of American freedom of speech makes a lot of people believe 'if it's on xxxx, it MUST be true, otherwise they'd not be able to publish it'
It's probably also one of the reasons said oligarchs are so upset with EU regulation, as they can be held accountable when they lie.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Given the many war crimes committed by the IDF is it acceptable for people to carry the Israeli flag?

Given the many war crimes committed by Palestine is it acceptable for people to carry the Palestinian flag?

I'd be happy if the rest of the world just stepped out and let these two go the distance and either find a mutual resolution on their own, or wipe each other out because they're too embedded in their own ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ to behave like grown ups. Of course, that's an impossibility, since the rest of the Islamic-lead middle east will support and give aid to palestine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You simply have to be joking. Islamists hate Jews, Christians and the Great Satan too, just for starters.

Sure, but they don't care what color people are . Whereas anyone who opposes islam clearly just hates brown folks.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nor should the mythic "freedom of speech".

You're correct - free speech does not allow incitement to criminal activity or violence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is no real difference, the UK "under caution" is the same as when USA police tell someone they are interviewing their "miranda" rights. It is meant to protect the rights of folk, so for example the right to silence, the right to have a legal representative present, the right to not incriminate yourself and so on. You can see hundreds of examples of such interviews in the USA on Youtube, and you will also see examples of the police arresting someone when they won't agree to a "voluntary" interview.

Police in the US cannot legally compel people to be interviewed in the same way. We can only legally be detained if we are suspected of having committed a crime, or if we've been subpoenaed as a witness to a crime.

US cops have absolutely NO authority to compel anyone to interact with them about an incident that is not a crime. There's no such thing as a "non crime incident" in the US.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Contentious, but it's the only one that is. ETA: However Pro-Choice groups do not have as a tenet "pro-life people are subhuman and should be killed". Nazis do say that Jews and various other ethnic groups are subhuman and should be killed, so even in your strongest argument it still fails utterly.

Pro-Palestine does not always equal anti-jewish. Even if one were to accept that it meant Anti-Israel (which I would argue it also very much does not but for the sake of argument) that is also very much not Anti-Jewish, unless you consider the marches done by Jews in protest of the actions of the Israeli government and IDF to be anti-Jewish as well.



BLM is not anti-White so this comparison is even worse than the Palestine one above.


Well when your examples are as stupid as the second two it's pretty easy.

Helen presented the argument that nazis shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate in areas with lots of jews, because it's "provocation". All of the scenarios I presented could be reasonably viewed as provocative from the perspective of those who live in those areas.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Bull. You are infantilising and demeaning real peoples' real concerns.

You do this all the time too, you know. You don't think those concerns have merit, and you're convinced of your own righteousness about it... but you absolutely demean other people's real concerns.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Civil and criminal are different worlds, though. We have interrogatories for civil, but that's a list of questions provided by the adversary that you have to respond to (like, 'who was the pizza boy that delivered that day?' they often shorthand it to). You can not directly answer by saying 'the question is improper and presented for purposes of nuisance' and things along that line, but there is no requirement I am aware of that says you have to disclose your defense in full prior to hearing the prosecutions case? I have personally 'dropped bombs' on the stand when the adversary went fishing with me. It was admissible.

Additionally, the burden goes the other direction. The prosecution is required to share all of the evidence, witness list, and previously collected witness statements with the defense attorney before hand. The defense is NOT required to share their defense strategy or evidence with the prosecution.

 

[Steve]

The flag of Palestine dates back to 1964 according to the interwebs. Muslim-governed lands have been engaged in waging a global jihad against infidel nations since the founding of the religion itself. Expansion of Islamic territory by force is an doctrine of the religion itself.

In use since the 1920's, adopted by the PLO in 1964. Your googly skills are lacking (or perhaps you only searched for what you wanted to find ). My point re the non-equivalence between Nazi flags and Palestinian flags stands.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The modern wording of the caution is "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"

In the US, that's not the case. Failure to mention something that aids your defense cannot harm your defense if it's presented later. The defense has no obligation to share any defending information with the prosecution.

Generally, if you have exculpatory evidence it's recommended to share that during arraignment - it may be used to dismiss the charges and avoid a court case. But it's not required at all, and if you choose NOT to share that exculpatory evidence until the trial itself, it doesn't harm your defense at all. It cannot be used against you in any fashion whatsoever.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No you are not. In England and Wales (note there are three legal systems in the UK), you do not have to say anything in your defence. The only thing that changed legally a few years ago is that the police are now allowed to say in court that you didn't present your defence when you were arrested. Previously they could not do that. The wording of the caution is a reminder to the arrestee that not saying anything now might look bad to the jury.

For example, if you are arrested for some robbery and you say nothing at the time, but at court you produce a witness who will testify you were with them in a pub five miles away, it looks suspiciously like you asked the witness to lie about your whereabouts after you got arrested.

In the US, this would be illegal. Failure to offer exculpatory evidence prior to trial cannot be held against you. "Oh that seems suspicious" doesn't come into it. If there's a witness whose testimony is considered suspect, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the witness is dishonest.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The USA versions tend to be stronger, saying something like "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Anything you say to the police after having been read your rights will be admitted as evidence by the prosecution, and becomes an element of the prosecution's case. The prosecution is required by law to provide anything that you say in their documentation - they're not allowed to withhold anything you said from their evidence, no matter how inconsequential that is. They don't have to use all of it as material elements of their case, but they are obligated to enter it as evidence.

The prosecution is also required to provide all of their evidence to the defense - so anything that you say to the police or interviewers can also be used in your defense if it benefits the defense to do so. The defense, however, does NOT have to share all of their evidence with the prosecution.

Innocent until proven guilty places the entirety of the burden on the prosecution. Defense gets to know all the evidence and information, prosecution only gets their own. A whole lot of arrests get dismissed and never charged, because the DA doesn't have enough evidence to make the case. If the prosecution lacks evidence enough to take to trial, the defense doesn't need any evidence at all, because they are not required to prove innocence.

 

[Thermal]

Fundamentalist Muslims: We want to subordinate females and keep them as property

Free Religion Advocates: I defend your right to believe whatever stupid ◊◊◊◊ you want to believe.

*Fundy muslims force females into burkas and stone them to death for showing their hair, deprive them of schooling and medical assistance and the ability to communicate with other females in public*

Free Religion Advocates: "Hey, how the heck did this happen?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What is missing in both your scenario and mine is the extraordinarily important clause that should be present at the end of the Freedom Advocate's statement:

Free Speech Advocates: I nobly defend your right to say so, but I deny you the ability to act on that speech.
Free Religion Advocates: I defend your right to believe whatever stupid ◊◊◊◊ you want to believe, but I deny you the ability to act on those beliefs.

Well, it does have that clause, in the practical sense. The whole 'law' thingy that stands independently of the speech. Having free speech never includes the right to act it out in meatspace.

What I'd like as a clause is to say "I nobly defend your right to say so, and should you provoke someone with your speech, it may be considered an assault if it menaces someone. Be prepared to accept the consequences of initiating the assault".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Surely that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the wording of the caution?

I disagree. The police's duty is to the community at large, not to the person they are arresting or who is suspected of a crime. The cops should never be acting in the best interest of the person they're arresting (which does not mean they should seek to do harm), but should always be acting to acquire as much evidence against them as possible. That's part of their investigative role, and they act in support of the district attorney, who is the prosecution.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interviews in the home are recorded only if the officer has his bodycam turned on, or if the interviewee chooses to record them.

In the US, it's generally not recommended to do any police interview in your own home. You can, if you choose to, but it's generally a better idea to do interviews at the police station, or perhaps at a business location. Once they're in your home, anything "in plain sight" can be used as evidence either in support of the crime they're investigating, or as the basis of a new charge against you. And "plain sight" can get stretched pretty easy - nothing explicitly bars them from opening a bedroom door or taking a peak in your closet. If a cop wants to enter you home, it's recommended that you require them to have a warrant - even if you've done nothing wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My problem with unrestricted freedom of speech is that it assumes the same form of non-existent utoptia communism assumes.
The US a good case in point. When there were a lot of varying news and media outlets that brought competing viewpoints this worked well.
But now most media is in the hands of a few oligarchs (Murdoch, Musk, Zuckerberg etc) that happily spread open lies, misinformation and outright propaganda without any counterpoint.
At the same time they aggressively police any dissent which gets removed from their media. Musk's 'freedom of speech' on twitter being a very obvious example.
IMO this is a large cause for the MAGA wins, as the myth of American freedom of speech makes a lot of people believe 'if it's on xxxx, it MUST be true, otherwise they'd not be able to publish it'
It's probably also one of the reasons said oligarchs are so upset with EU regulation, as they can be held accountable when they lie.

You're not wrong with respect to media... but it actually isn't due to being in the hands of a few people. There used to be an FCC Fairness Doctrine for news, that required reporting on controversial topics of public interest to provide a fair representation of the varying views involved. So if the topic were abortion, for example, news channels were required to present views both for and against it, without cherry picking, without removing context, and without distortion or misleading framing. They had to give the public full and fair information about both sides of the topic, in a non-partisan way.

The Fairness Doctrine got a lot of challenges on the basis of free speech, and it was also leveraged for abuse in many cases (interestingly by Democrats of the time, which don't bear much resemblance to Democrats of today). At some point, Congress tried to pass more comprehensive legislation as a general law rather than an FCC rule - Reagan vetoed it. Part of the argument for getting rid of the rule was that there were now many options for people to acquire news, and that people could get opposing views on their own without any specific broadcaster having to feed them both sides.

And thus we got Fox News, pretty much the first mainstream broadcast to take a clearly biased approach to reporting. Other outlets followed suit, albeit more slowly, and now the largest news broadcasts all have a partisan bias to their reporting. With social media, it's become even worse, with each partisan side engaging in out-of-context snippets and quotes, misleading framing, and unsupported insinuations to both drive engagement via emotion, and to sway public sentiment.

We really should have kept that regulation, imo.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In use since the 1920's, adopted by the PLO in 1964. Your googly skills are lacking (or perhaps you only searched for what you wanted to find ). My point re the non-equivalence between Nazi flags and Palestinian flags stands.

Meh - call it google's ai being crap.

I don't see nearly as much distinction as you seem to. I pretty strongly feel that any flag that represents a totalitarian religious basis intent on converting the entire planet is just as bad. The fact that I'm a female human being *might* have an influence on my views toward islam.

 

[Steve]

Meh - call it google's ai being crap.

I don't see nearly as much distinction as you seem to. I pretty strongly feel that any flag that represents a totalitarian religious basis intent on converting the entire planet is just as bad. The fact that I'm a female human being *might* have an influence on my views toward islam.

The discussion, you may recall, was about whether It was acceptable, as a form of free speech, to fly Nazi flags or Palestinian flags in front of a synagogue. My position was Nazi flags no, Palestinian flags yes. In response to your questioning this I posted the following:

"Killing Jews was a major tenet of being a Nazi. Killing Jews is not a major tenet of being a Palestinian."

Since then you have offered a deflection by talking about flags of Hezbollah and Hamas, which have no relevance to my point. And now you are talking about religious conversion, and gender, which are equally irrelevant.

You have provided no rational reason to consider the Nazi flag and the Palestinian flag to be in any way equivalent. My position remains unchanged.

 

[Planigale]

Given the many war crimes committed by Palestine is it acceptable for people to carry the Palestinian flag?

I'd be happy if the rest of the world just stepped out and let these two go the distance and either find a mutual resolution on their own, or wipe each other out because they're too embedded in their own ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ to behave like grown ups. Of course, that's an impossibility, since the rest of the Islamic-lead middle east will support and give aid to palestine.

I think carrying flags should be allowed. You take the consequences of being identified with the cause you espouse, including Naziism.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Helen presented the argument that nazis shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate in areas with lots of jews, because it's "provocation". All of the scenarios I presented could be reasonably viewed as provocative from the perspective of those who live in those areas.

If you're a moron, sure.

I pointed out why your examples fail, and instead of attempting to argue against that you just limply suggested that they're fine.