Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[Steve]

And I'm still none the wiser as to why these characters need to "pray" in those provocative places, when god can, so I'm reliably informed, hear prayers anywhere and everywhere.

And I'm still none the wiser why foreign fundamentalist christian groups of certain political persuasions just happen to fund these characters and their legal fees.

It's almost like someone is being dishonest about their intentions...

Personally I'd be a lot happier if all religions were purely private matters between consenting adults in the peace of their own premises, as the rest of us have no need to know about their beliefs. Well, unless the performative display of ones purity and righteousness and faithfulness is the point.

But not many folk see it the same way.

Interference in the business of non-adherents, up to and including killing them, has been a central practice of the Christian, and Muslim, religions for many centuries. My thinking is that they have such insecurity in their own beliefs that they are scared to let opposing ideas exist lest they allow those ideas to intrude and interfere with their own beliefs.

 

[Mojo]

Why not 500? No, it is not absurd.

Actually you have been quite consistent in saying you think any distance is unacceptable, so why would this particular distance be more absurd to you than any other?

Because the USA has a different distance.

 

[smartcooky]

Not my fault if silent prayer causes someone terrible shame and humiliation. Maybe they need to toughen up a little.

And no, silent prayer does NOT interfere with one's ability to get to and from an abortion clinic. That is not a reasonable POV and no jury would agree with you.

I can't agree with that perspective.

I think the intent of the restricted zone is to prevent placard-carrying noisy demonstrations that would disturb and intimidate the patients, the staff and the neighbours of the clinic. I can agree with the setting up of such zones under those circumstances. I just think stretching the laws to include someone just standing there doing nothing is a bridge too far, and the optics are terrible... it's another example of the type of blowback I mentioned earlier - bringing attention to something that was best just left alone.
I said earlier that I objected to the idea of such zones, but on reflection, I think it's more that I object to the way the zone was used as a pretext.

 

[Hercules56]

Because the USA has a different distance.

15' is much closer to the actual protest target. People can still hear you speak at a reasonable volume.

500' is 1/10th of a mile.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Because the USA has a different distance.

Assuming they don't only allow you to protest in a concrete box of course.

As cited earlier (by another poster) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.

 

[Steve]

15' is more acceptable.

I assume you mean acceptable to yourself. To me 15 seconds feet seems...what was that word..... absurd.

 

[junkshop]

So why 500'?? Isn't that distance a bit absurd?

I wasn't going to point this out, but since that you are making such a big thing of it: the restriction is not 500 feet, it is 150 metres, or 492 feet 1.512 inches. Hyperbolic exaggerations do your arguments no favours.

 

[arthwollipot]

15' is more acceptable.

15' is practically nothing. 15' is still pretty much right in someone's face.

I just think stretching the laws to include someone just standing there doing nothing is a bridge too far...

They're not standing there doing nothing. They're protesting. They're protesting in a place where they know they're not allowed to protest.

 

[Hercules56]

I assume you mean acceptable to yourself. To me 15 seconds feet seems...what was that word..... absurd.

No, it respects freedom of speech while protecting access for ladies.

 

[arthwollipot]

You can stand near someone, not say a word, and still be incredibly intimidating, if you stare at them creepily enough. Is the creepy stare protected speech?



(image source)

 

[Helen]

No, it respects freedom of speech while protecting access for ladies.

How far away do you have to be to lose your freedom of speech? And are you allowed to pray silently within the US zones?

Ladies seems like an obfuscation, by the way, some are girls, very young girls, even. Which is important to remember, if you ask me; traumatising them further should be avoided.

 

[Matthew Best]

15' is more acceptable.

15 inches? That's just about an arm's length!

 

[Hercules56]

You can stand near someone, not say a word, and still be incredibly intimidating, if you stare at them creepily enough. Is the creepy stare protected speech?

View attachment 64674

(image source)

Of course it is. Nobody ever said Freedom had to be loving & sweet. It just has to be civil.

 

[jimbob]

Of course it is. Nobody ever said Freedom had to be loving & sweet. It just has to be civil.

It also has to not be intimidation. Which is the problem here. And yes, silent "prayer" as a protest cam be intimidation.

Part of the reason for the 150m distance is presumably so women can use the medical service without fear of being identified and photographed.

 

[Hercules56]

It also has to not be intimidation. Which is the problem here. And yes, silent "prayer" as a protest cam be intimidation...

If silent prayer intimidates you, grow some thicker skin. See a shrink.

No jury would accept that silent prayer is soo intimidating that it must be seen as a crime. Such a POV is unreasonable.

 

[Helen]

Of course it is. Nobody ever said Freedom had to be loving & sweet. It just has to be civil.

And sometimes 15 feet away. But not 492, because somwhere in between those distances, freedom of speech is lost. So who decides exactly what "civil" means? I have understood that you (as in you personally, possibly, as well as you as in the US) are the arbiter of distances, do you also get to define civil?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Kent police apologise to protester threatened with arrest for holding Palestine flag

Force agrees to pay damages to Laura Murton, 43, who also had sign saying ‘Israel is committing genocide’

www.theguardian.com

And they have paid compensation to Murton, acknowledging that they screwed up and breached her rights to free speech.

Judicial review of the proscription is still due next month.

 

[catsmate]

15' is much closer to the actual protest target. People can still hear you speak at a reasonable volume.

500' is 1/10th of a mile.

So you support the "right" of "protesters" to "speak" to people experiencing seriously stressful events, but not the right of said women not to have to hear the horrific denegration being "spoken" at them?

 

[catsmate]

I assume you mean acceptable to yourself. To me 15 seconds feet seems...what was that word..... absurd.

Clearly the "right" of loonies people to "speak" is vastly more important than the right to those being "spoken" at not being forced to listen.

 

[catsmate]

How far away do you have to be to lose your freedom of speech? And are you allowed to pray silently within the US zones?

Ladies seems like an obfuscation, by the way, some are girls, very young girls, even. Which is important to remember, if you ask me; traumatising them further should be avoided.

Yeah, that struck me as a weird choice of phrase.

And I agree completely with your sentiment; some of the girls and women I met were seriously ◊◊◊◊◊◊-up by their experiences and situation. Having abuse, the likes of "baby murdering whore" being about the mildest, screamed at them didn't help. We provided earplugs.
Probably @Hercules56 would claim that that was depriving the "protesters" of their right to scream abuse speak freely.