West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[Rat]

I've already cited Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Have you read the case? Seen what was said? Here is some of what was ruled protected speech. The asterixes are the "N-word":

Asterix is a cartoon character.

 

[WildCat]

But is it not the case that the FCC, a government agency, has rules on what may be broadcast on the air? So that, for example, you can't say certain words. And why the qualification 'at night'? Is speech only free in the daytime?

The FCC regs only cover daytime broadcasts, to "protect the children" of course. And only cover OTA channels, there are no content restrictions whatsoever at any time for cable, satellite, and internet.

The reasoning is that there is limited bandwidth available for broadcast, and the airwaves belong to the public. It's been a trivial distinction since cable televison became prominent in the 1970s and 1980s, and even more meaningless in the internet age. And the courts have reined in some of the FCCs powers.

So of the 300 or so TV channels I get maybe 8 or 9 are subject to FCC content restrictions in the daytime.

 

[Agatha]

How do they collect and enforce license fees if they're not part of the government? What happens when someone refuses to pay? How did they get a monopoly? Why is there no competition?

I gave you the link if you really want to know about TV licensing, but I'm a bit baffled by the implication that only government can collect fees. TV Licensing is part of the BBC, not part of the government. TV Licensing sends a bill, it gets paid, job done. Just like any other bill.

The law states that everyone who watches or records TV programmes as they are broadcast (except the over 75s, and some other exceptions) must pay the licence fee.

Failure to pay is an offence for which a person can be imprisoned, though few people are, mostly they get a fine. If someone refuses to pay they'll be taken to court. It's not compulsory to own or watch television, so if someone doesn't want to watch TV they won't need to pay the licence fee.

The licence fee is the way the BBC is funded, without the fee the BBC would either have to show advertisements (which would be very unpopular) or be funded from elsewhere, such as government, which would be even more unpopular as the suspicion would be that it would cease to be independent.

The BBC doesn't have a monopoly. There are five terrestrial channels (ones that anyone can receive without having satellite or cable) of which only two are BBC channels. The other three are funded chiefly by advertising revenue. Someone with a freeview box (no subscription, as the name implies) or a satellite or cable subscription has access to hundreds more channels, a few of which are BBC but the majority of which are not.

Similarly, the BBC broadcasts on analogue five national radio stations plus many local stations, there are lots of non-BBC stations which are funded by advertising, both local and national. And again, even more radio stations on digital, both BBC and commercial.

Driving speech underground doesn't seem to be working out for you guys, what with racist mobs controlling entire towns and such.

When has this happened, and where?

If you could lose the "my country is better than your country" sneering attitude and perhaps consider that what works in the USA might not work for the UK on account of our different culture and different history, this might be a more productive discussion. Most of us who live here would not want to live in a country with the exact same laws as you have, because we recognise that we are different countries, facing quite different challenges. Turning it into a "you should do this because it works for the USA" is as pointless as it is irritating. Nobody in this thread who is in the UK is suggesting that the USA should adopt our laws, so it would be nice if you could do us the same courtesy.

 

[Matthew Best]

I for one am glad I live in a country with strict gun control laws, but I don't demand, or even suggest, that the USA copies us, because, as the saying goes, you can't get here from there. They could (and possibly should, but I don't really know) tinker with their laws regarding gun ownership, but I don't think there's a realistic prospect of the USA ever ending up with the laws we have over here. And I'm fine with that.

Similarly with so-called "freedom of speech".

 

[Darat]

I've already cited Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Have you read the case? Seen what was said? Here is some of what was ruled protected speech. The asterixes are the "N-word":

...snip...

Read some about that case and I can't see any difference inbetween the UK and USA legal system when it comes to make such determinations. What do you think the legal difference are?

 

[Darat]

Why no, not at all. Those things are not protected speech. But incitement and threats isn't the issue here, as has already been shown. You guys actually made it ilegal to insult someone. Hey, in Egypt the Islamists put those provisions in the draft Constitution. I'm sure they'll use those laws responsibly too.

...snip...

Does the fact that we haven't made it illegal for anyone to insult anyone not effect your conclusions?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation

 

[stokes234]

I'm amazed nobody has taken Wildcat's "our country is more liberal than yours" bait to list the ways in which the USA in far less liberal than its european counterparts. Bravo fellows.

 

[Rat]

I'm amazed nobody has taken Wildcat's "our country is more liberal than yours" bait to list the ways in which the USA in far less liberal than its european counterparts. Bravo fellows.

I kind of assumed that it went without saying.

 

[Ocelot]

So now the claim is that correllation shows causation?

Correlation alone does not show causation. It's evidence but on its own, pretty weak evidence. Pseudo skeptics who don't understand the hierarchy of evidence may parrot this line to dismiss all correlation as no kind of evidence at all. Correlation doesn't prove causation. True enough there are plenty of examples where there's a correlation and cause could be either way round. Do violent computer games cause violent tendencies or are people with violent tendencies attracted to violent video games? What's more there could be two variables that correlate with each other due to a third variable that is the actual cause. Or if you mine the data Hard enough you can find correlations just through random chance. Yet not being proof is a pretty high bar and not being evidence is just plain wrong.

However is this correlation on it's own? Couple correlation with a probable cause of action and you start to find the evidence is looking better.

In fact if that probable mode of action is the rational behind an intervention intended to bring about an outcome then if that intervention does indeed correlate with the predicted outcome then the evidence is probably as good as you're going to get.

But you're not stupid. You know this already. You're just clutching at straws. Throwing about your red herring like you have a reasonable hope that will hide your embarrassment. No that's not the argument I'm making and you know it.

No the argument is that you don't know what you're talking about. The argument is that you're the one with the positive claims that aren't backed by evidence. Such as your risible claim that stricter laws and procedures to tackle football hooliganism represent and attack on free speech; or your totally hilarious attempt to suggest that these laws have been ineffective in tackling football hooliganism. Not only are these claims not backed by evidence. Not only is your weak support of the claims simply that you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. No my point is that you have seen evidence to the contrary and that if you bothered to look for evidence to settle the matter you'd see that what evidence there is disagrees with you. My point is that in order to support these points you have to keep yourself wilfully ignorant, you have to distance yourself from reality to even be in the same room as these fanciful notions of yours.

Sure raise the bar, ask for better evidence than you know to be available. Anyone can do that right or wrong. What you can't do is present actual positive evidence to back up the points you're trying to make. That's because you're wrong. And by not even attempting to engage with the evidence you've tipped your hand. You've revealed that you know that you're wrong.

Shameful.

 

[Ocelot]

I kind of assumed that it went without saying.

I've pointed out to WildCat in one of his other free speech rants that the so called Land of the Free has the highest incarceration rate in the world, is one of the few countries that refuses to ratify the universal declaration of human rights (so that they can continue to execute children and other such charming activities) they have not signed up to the international criminal court.

It would seem that for some Americans the reason that they fetishise over the Right to Free speech that it's one of the few rights they actually have. When they witness people with a whole variety of rights and the complexity of having one right conflict with another they're baffled, confused and lash out.

 

[Damien Evans]

Are you familiar with Arkell v Pressdram ?

I'm certainly familiar with the reply given.

 

[Nessie]

I 100% support the right of the KKK to march, burn crosses, etc. So does the US Supreme Court.

And in fact they are allowed to do all those things in the USA, and their membership has dwindled to almost nothing while the UK, despite laws against spouting racism, can still field mobs of racist asshats.

Good job UK, suppressing speech you don't like is really working!

You still cannot tell the difference between expressing an opinion, which is fine in the UK, and chanting it as abuse to provoke a fight, which is not in the UK.

 

[Darat]

You still cannot tell the difference between expressing an opinion, which is fine in the UK, and chanting it as abuse to provoke a fight, which is not in the UK.

Which also is not in the USA.

 

[WildCat]

When has this happened, and where?

I don't live in the UK, I can only go by what you said:

Tell you what why don't you walk down the Queens Road in a Tottenham shirt next Saturday. You can use your rights of free speech to peacefully proclaim your opinion that threats of violence from West Ham fans aren't credible threats and shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's a joke by the way. I know you're on the other side of the Atlantic and there's no chance of you trying it else I wouldn't risk the suggestion. People who do live near enough to try this on a whim know better than to take their life in their hands.

Apparently the UK in 2012 resembles 1930s Germany, where Jews out in public are risking their lives.

You really think free speech is to blame?

 

[WildCat]

Read some about that case and I can't see any difference inbetween the UK and USA legal system when it comes to make such determinations. What do you think the legal difference are?

So Brandenburg would not have been arrested in the UK, and if he was he'd be exonerated by the courts? I don;t think that's the case at all.

In the UK in the last few months people have been convicted for being mean on facebook, for giving their opinions on immigration, and for other such nonsense. And despite all the legal attempts to enforce a civil society a Jew can't walk the streets of West Ham without being violently attacked.

Maybe you're doing it wrong?

 

[WildCat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation

Still not making any sense.

 

[WildCat]

I'm amazed nobody has taken Wildcat's "our country is more liberal than yours" bait to list the ways in which the USA in far less liberal than its european counterparts. Bravo fellows.

A Jew can walk the streets of the USA without being violently attacked by mobs of rabid anti-semites. Something impossible for them in West Ham UK at least, according to Ocelot.

 

[WildCat]

Correlation alone does not show causation. It's evidence but on its own, pretty weak evidence. Pseudo skeptics who don't understand the hierarchy of evidence may parrot this line to dismiss all correlation as no kind of evidence at all. Correlation doesn't prove causation. True enough there are plenty of examples where there's a correlation and cause could be either way round. Do violent computer games cause violent tendencies or are people with violent tendencies attracted to violent video games? What's more there could be two variables that correlate with each other due to a third variable that is the actual cause. Or if you mine the data Hard enough you can find correlations just through random chance. Yet not being proof is a pretty high bar and not being evidence is just plain wrong.

However is this correlation on it's own? Couple correlation with a probable cause of action and you start to find the evidence is looking better.

In fact if that probable mode of action is the rational behind an intervention intended to bring about an outcome then if that intervention does indeed correlate with the predicted outcome then the evidence is probably as good as you're going to get.

But you're not stupid. You know this already. You're just clutching at straws. Throwing about your red herring like you have a reasonable hope that will hide your embarrassment. No that's not the argument I'm making and you know it.

No the argument is that you don't know what you're talking about. The argument is that you're the one with the positive claims that aren't backed by evidence. Such as your risible claim that stricter laws and procedures to tackle football hooliganism represent and attack on free speech; or your totally hilarious attempt to suggest that these laws have been ineffective in tackling football hooliganism. Not only are these claims not backed by evidence. Not only is your weak support of the claims simply that you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. No my point is that you have seen evidence to the contrary and that if you bothered to look for evidence to settle the matter you'd see that what evidence there is disagrees with you. My point is that in order to support these points you have to keep yourself wilfully ignorant, you have to distance yourself from reality to even be in the same room as these fanciful notions of yours.

Sure raise the bar, ask for better evidence than you know to be available. Anyone can do that right or wrong. What you can't do is present actual positive evidence to back up the points you're trying to make. That's because you're wrong. And by not even attempting to engage with the evidence you've tipped your hand. You've revealed that you know that you're wrong.

Shameful.

Ah, so you actually have no evidence whatsoever that UK thought crime laws actually reduce racism and such.

Oh sorry, it's only when you express those thoughts that you get arrested. Huge difference.

 

[MikeG]

........
Apparently the UK in 2012 resembles 1930s Germany, where Jews out in public are risking their lives..........

If it wasn't for the 45,000 posts I would have reported this as blatant trolling. You're talking complete and utter nonsense, of course, but you know that already. You haven't the first idea what you are talking about, but you also know that. You're being offensive, and you know that too. That is probably your purpose.

What I don't understand is your motivation for this tosh. Is it hyper-nationalism, perhaps, or paranoia? Impish joie-de-vivre, maybe, or just an inability to understand simple explanations given by people who actually know what is going on?

Mike