Though in some cases you want that catch to avoid panics (eg. shouting fire in a crowded space) and as far as I remember freedoms already only go up until they substantially affect others (aka my freedom to throw a punch (without repercussions) ends where your nose begins kinda deal)
Just because they say that they have free speech DOESN'T mean they actually have free speech. Heck, I don't even think North Koreans even know what free speech is.
The "grossly offensive" meme the man jailed for 8 weeks posted was a photo of an Asian gang with the caption "coming to a town near you". I see far edgier memes from retirees on my local community Facebook group. If that sentiment is illegal they're going to have to lock up half the country
Probably a good thing that the message is clearly communicated that this kind of race-baiting is not OK and will be punished, right? Baiting rioters isn't harmless; and you can be sure that the retirees on your local community facebook group will stop edging on violent gangs if they suffer consequences for it. It's not like they didn't know what was going to happen; the riots were already in full swing. That behavior is simply not at all OK.
@@peacejohn4344 I expect that this accountability already has and will continue to encourage people to take more care before they fan the flames of violent riots. It's already achieving its desired effect, and will take years for that to wane through forgetfulness. I see absolutely no reason to expect that holding those egging on violent rioters accountable will somehow quixotically encourage more violent riots, especially since the whole episode was clearly built on a house of lies by malign and sometimes intentionally manipulative foreign actors.
@@MoireFly I think that’s a terrible, terrible idea which sets a worrying precedent. It’s reasonable to have laws against quite specific speech like inciting violence. It is not reasonable to imprison people for something as vague as “race baiting”. Just think how easily that same law could be used to censor condemnation of any religion or nation. If Muslims posted similar memes about rising Hindu Nationalism in the UK, should they be imprisoned? What about a similar meme with a picture of the IDF, condemning the influence of Israel on politics? Or would it be anti-white hatred to post the same meme with a picture of the rioters?
@@MoireFly The next time the riots happen, they will just be 10x worse, and this may just spawn flat out terrorist organizations. The reason they're happening in the first place is nobody's doing anything about crime and housing prices are rising, things tied at least in part to massive migration waves. Pointing out that fact just gets you branded a fascist/racist whatever. So the current extant resentment and feeling repressed will just increase. People will still hold these views but they will just reach for more violent tactics in the future, and those who do to jail will 100% just get radicalized. I think it's an absolutely horrible idea to jail keyboard warriors not partaking in the violence, it validates *all* the propaganda floating around about how 'we will not be listened to blah blah'.
I don't think people should be jailed for having distasteful views be it anti-immigration or misogyny. Setting fire to doorways of hotels however absolutely put them in jail!
Okay, but what if people's distasteful views, and their propagation online, spurs others into racist action? You know, like GBeebies and Farridge have done?
@@ProsecutorZekrom I can't claim credit, I'm afraid - James O'Brien coined it after GBN made the defence that it can't be held culpable for misinformation because it's an entertainment rather than a news outlet.
Sigh. People like you really are all the same. You couldn't tell the plain truth if your life depended on it. The explanation was clear enough but it's not what you want to hear, so you distort it to suit your own purposes. Pathetic.
This comment shows that you know nothing of jusrisprudence and legal precisents. This is precisely why you should trust others to define this - they can use their brain in a competent way.
No more vague than so many other aspects of law, including ones relating to speech. Ultimately it will come down to judicial decisions to precisely draw the boundaries.
I've read the full definition in the actual law and it can be argued both ways. When we see a pensioner who was caring for his sick wife put away for years over a social media post while hardened criminals are set free to make room I venture to say the law is being abused right now.
And in that case, IIRC, the "offended" person was a police officer on the local hate crimes unit who "volunteered to be offended" in the public interest...
@CaptainBollocks.... Oh good I'm not the only 1 who realised this. I want them to start arresting rappers not because I think this law makes sense but because I don't think it does. This would mean that people would see how stupid this law is and get rid of it.
Arresting people for directly calling for violence is one thing, but people have been arrested and prosecuted for far less in recent weeks and the whole thing feels positively authoritarian. I voted for Labour but I would never have voted for this.
The Tories bought in these laws not Starmer but you didn't mind when you thought they would only be used on peaceful environmental protests and anti-Brexit protestors who made a noise like Steve Bray. Did you shout when Just Stop Oil people went to prison for 5 years for peacefully stopping a motorway - no you didn't. So why are you shouting when people who take part or inspire arson, riots, looting and street violence get rightfully punished? Only one reason - you support the riots. The right wing, like their heroes Trump, Putin, Johnson + Farage, don't think laws or taxes should apply to them. They only support democracy when they win and if they don't react with violent riots and their beloved free speech is only concerned for their speech, no one else's. They are actually, knowingly or unknowingly, working for Putin and are part of his war on the West, they are not patriots, they are dividing and wrecking this country.
I genuinely don't understand the logic behind this dismissal. Shakespeare wasn't announcing those words to the world from his own mouth, he wrote them to be spoken by a character in a fictional play. That's not the same as writing it in the newspaper as a personal quote for all to see (for example), or tweeting it.
This dismissal makes no sense! The context couldn't be further away from jokingly saying you're going to commit an act of terror. Our justice system is too soft.
@@mvnkycheez Did you read the Oxfordshire report on the grooming gang scandal in that town and what was said to children as young as 11 years old by police and prosecutors? It seems that free speech is quite lenient in at least one direction.
I’m an American but a passionate lover of the UK. This makes me very thankful that the First Amendment hardwires freedom of speech into our government. The UK is on a very dangerous slippery slope right now, for many reason.
Hate Speech is good when used against my enemies, but bad when used against my friends, is often the opinion of the commenters. Think this country is all downhill, it's urmmmm it's over.
Hate speech needs to be abolished as a concept from law, as hate is a very subjective term. The only limits on speech should be on incitement to violence or a crime, direct and credible threats, and malicious defamation, otherwise you don't live in a truly free society. These issues should be dealt with via civil society, not by the justice system.
It ain't subjective, everyone knows what a bigot is and how they behave. Marching on the streets and shouting "Jews will not replace us" while burning down a refugee camp is straight up hate.
@@leglez3977 Sure but are phrases like "From the river to the sea" or other various pro-Palestine and anti-Israel chants hate speech? I'd say no they're simply showing support for certain borders for any hypothetical Palestinian state but people like Patel would claim they incite hatred for Israeli citizens. There's clearly an element of subjectivity here.
There were black flags, signs saying "this is why the rocks and trees must speak", "globalise the intifada" and they weren't arrested, and probably still won't be under two tier keir..
Thats calling for the destruction of the state of israle and implies that palistians will take back the land, displacing all the jews there. Mass expulsions like this are gennocide.
You mean O’Rourke who pleaded guilt to the charge between 28/01/2024 and 11/08/2024 published written material, which was threatening, abusive or insulting intending thereby to stir up racial hatred or having regard to all the circumstance. That one?
Reading the comments, I think it was a mis-step to not include the actual text/memes being prosecuted in the mentioned stories - everyone seems to have taken away the false impression that they directly incited violence (obviously prosecutable) when in reality one simply said “Coming to a town near you.” on a photo of migrants which is arguably just a material description of reality rather than a normative prescription to do anything.
The problem lies in who you trust to determine what is and is not "hate" speech. I know I don't trust my government to do this. Lately it is feeling like, "1984".
Judges and juries determine that, not the government. It is a written law after all and been proven throughout the decades in courts as what counts and what does not. It is fairly hard to get hit with a hate speech/hate crime violation though if you aren't being particularly blunt with it.
This comment shows that you know nothing of jusrisprudence and legal precisents. This is precisely why you should trust others to define this - they can use their brain in a competent way.
Someone got 2 years in prison for racism and shouting at a police dog. These sentences are draconian. Neither of those things in any sane world are criminal offences, whatever one thinks of them.
A cultural revolution against external ideologies and back to Britishness is coming. It has to. It's heartbreaking to see a country I care about so much becoming this authoritarian, two-tiered policing state. Return to Britishness!
No it isn't. If the powers exist then they are there to be used. The general public does not get to tell the police when to start and when to stop being the police.
Doesn't matter if you can go to prison or not the fact you can get a knock on the door from the Police for a social media post is a worrying trend. I only see this getting worse if the media keeps downplaying or ignoring this authoritarianism.
And the person who broke a police woman’s nose and attacked 2 other officers, the person who stabbed an army officer 17 times still haven’t been charged. I wonder why.
@@SirAntoniousBlock bullshit. In every country the voting system is different and yet rich people always end up on top. What were you saying about a free vote?
You left out instances of people sharing non-harmful memes and being prosecuted, and also MPs actually sharing misinformation that directly led to harm. Not very impartial journalism
You introduced this by saying that the riots "engulfed the county for the last month". That's a vast exaggeration. They lasted for about two weeks and were very sporadic and localized. The overwhelming majority of the UK population saw no riots and went about their normal lives without incident. BTW, are you going to comment on the UK police commissioner threatening to extradite _US citizens_ from the US for tweets relating to the riots. US Twitter, safe behind the First Amendment, thought that was HILARIOUS and the UK is now a laughing stock over there.
And it's also malicious framing. Like 80% of them went off without any disorder, where there was disorder it was less than 5% of those present doing it. Calling it 'riots' is Starmer's framing to justify a crackdown. Disorder a lot worse and more systematic, such as that of the BLM, was previously called 'protest'.
Are the UK folks finally waking up to the growing Police State being created around them? Racist language is awful but these arrests are political, not criminal.
Get yer head out yer arse. This is in response to violent extreme terrorism from thugs who descended on neighbourhoods that were not their own. We're under attack and we're just defending ourselves. The actual silent majority supports these arrests
@@00dude3 a handful of people have quite rightly been jailed for inciting violence. Things like encouraging others to burn down mosques with people in them. If you can't see why that's a big issue, I can't help you son. Either way, the penalty for burning down a mosque would be significantly larger than for encouraging others to do it. Obviously slapping someone would carry a lesser sentence than telling others to commit murder. Again, if you can't see why I can't fix your cognitive deficiencies.
ppl posting shit - 4 years of jail ppl attacks 5 armed police - free Guess what this has to do with treating different people depending on their background?
Except for the fact that the US in notorious for cracking down on criticism of Israel, has don't ask don't tell in Florida schools and has taken to the mass banning of literature
It is also the only place in the word where a candidate in democratic elections promise to "be dictator on day one" and to "fix the country so well you will not have to vote again".
You mean apart from the banned books, empty libraries and teachers being forbiden to speak with chidlren about those topics that the conservatives don't like?
It's certainly something else, because it's not a fact. People still put on productions of Henry VI part II today without being arrested. There is a big difference between writing a fictional character who advocates murder, and advocating it yourself.
Slow slide? It just to call it what it is, and that is the fact that one simply does not have free speech in the UK. Free speech involves allowing hate speech, involves allowing people to say offensive things, otherwise you don't have free speech.
As an attorney from the US, I just want be clear that the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech is not all encompassing and does not protect every form of speech. Speech that is made with the purpose to incite violence is not protected. Under the SCOTUS case of Brandenburg, we are given the imminent lawless action test to evaluate if such speech is protected.
@@Bean_guy2 yes because every single person who was posting memes about how draconian these UK rules are was inciting violence, 100% of them and not a single one was just stating their opinion
Even incitement is a slippery slope: if someone politely asked you to give them all your money and you agree would that be theft? if someone suggested without coercion you jumped off a bridge and you did, would that be murder? is the person being told to do something devoid of any agency and responsibility? Threats and incitement should be reported and the police should have an obligation monitor and prepare for the possibility of a crime taking place, but intentions/words and thoughts cannot be prosecuted. Prosecuting intentions is another major slippery slope, as every action you take could be interpreted as a "threat" or a crime waiting to happen: you looking at someone funny (are you going to assault them?), you smiling at someone (sxsl harassment?), you asking someone for a tour of their house (planning for burglary?).
Funny how I remembered all Indians living in UK "We are not that kind of Asian" "We support free spech" then blaming Islam Edit : Sorry, not all but some.
@@NoRezos Muslims do not support free speech, they allahuakbar the people who speak out, so to me those Indians you're talking about seem to be absolutely based. People who reject free speech (which also by the way includes almost all of the political left, since they are the ones who push for these hate speech laws) should not be given the benefit of that right, that would be only fair. But instead we get 2-tier policing where one group can in all seriousness call for the eradication of an entire country and its population and not even get a slap on the wrist, while another is being jailed for posting sarcastic memes or being upset about racially targeted sexual abuse by a certain demographic.
See the problem for me is the term "grossly offensive" it's stupidly ambiguous and while you might think it's fine because it's only being used on people who belong to groups that you are not part of it could eventually be used on your group. Some examples of people who've been fined by this are A man who wanted to make his dog the least cute thing possible as his wife wouldn't shut up about it so he trained it to do a roman salute and asked it questions you might think a no no German would answer yes to and he sent it to his close mates but then it went viral. There was also a black woman who quotes a rap and used the nword in a tweet so I guess even black people aren't allowed to say it now.
Good lord. Could you imagine rhe nightmare of being jailed for several weeks for an offensive meme?? Practically all of us in the USA would then have criminal records. The extend that the UK is policing free speech seems tad bit insane.
_'Practically all of us in the USA'_ Have guns? _'The extend that the UK is policing free speech seems tad bit insane.'_ The extend that the US is obsessed with god and guns seems tad bit insane.
Only speech inciting imminent lawless action should be banned. All other speech should be allowed. Rude, hateful, offensive, good, rational, it doesn’t matter, they should all be legal
I think the imperfect result of this is just watch yourself to make sure you're not just being wholly hateful. I don't even like Chappelle but he has been trying to qualify his critcisism of trans people so that it doesn't incite violence. Issue I see is that, say he decides to go the other way, at what point can we say he isn't culpable because he is a comedian and someone might find his rhetoric funny? It's an impossible question to answer as most of this is but I would say that Gervais and Chapelle are both major contributors to the normalization of hate towards trans people. I'm not saying they should be held liable but it's also not something you can necessarily ignore. I think that at the end of the day most court cases' results are very subjective to a jury or judge regardless and so it will have to be a case by case basis.
@@thomasandrewclifford By that metric, any criticism of current trans policies (bathrooms, sports) could be considered normalisation of hatred towards trans people though.
@@itsmarmalade I'd say just as with our current migration debate there is a difference behind criticism and hate. You can be critical but the moment you're accusing trans women of being predators trying to abuse women and children you've gone beyond the scope of debate and into something far beyond civil discourse. Transphobes need to get better at actually engaging people on the topic if they want to be heard in the same way rioters and racists won't be getting heard if the way they express themselves breaches laws.
@@thomasandrewclifford When I qoute state statistics about trans rates of peadophilia or the crime rate per capita of immigrants/blacks and browns, simply making light of this could see a judge declare my intention was hateful! 0 laws on speech is the way forward.
As an American, it does seem to me that the threshold for prosecution is much lower in the UK. In the US we have the Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) precedent that only allows prosecution for speech in the case it’s intended and likely to result in imminent lawlessness. The standard of proving that here seems to be higher than would allow for the prosecution for some of the tweets that have landed people in jail in the UK.
This is free speech, Only free speech absolutism allows incitement, we are totally F'd if this goes unstopped, literally just out of the red arm band handbook.
The eagerness of some people in this comment section to lock up others over speech concerns me - hateful or not, comedic or not, regardless of the political party in charge, I do not trust the government to be the ones determining which words land you in prison - you fight hateful speech, with more, better speech.
Exactly. Some people are far too keen to have the government tell them what they are allowed to say knowing it will crack down on people other than themselves, and they may well find themselves victim to this one day.
"The government" isn't the one determining this. There are police officers, prosecutors, laws, jurisprudence, judges and juries involved. It won't be a trivial line to draw; some will be rightfully acquitted; some will be borderline; and some (very few) will alas be wrongfully convicted - just as in many other criminal matters. However, let's also not forget that out-of-control algorithmically amplified incitement has real harms. It is sadly true that no enforcement is free of all negative side effects, but that simply does not mean that lawlessness is better. The eagerness of some people in the comment section to falsely draw analogies to comedy or to pretend that it's impossible to distinguish between speech concerns me. Free speech _is_ powerful. That's kind of the whole point. But no, it's not all the same, and no, that power isn't harmless either. If you try to convince a jury that a bit of comedy is incitement then the ones left laughing will likely be them. You're painting risks here that are almost absurd in the extremity of your claims. But I get where you're coming from, and _yes_ we should be concerned and vigilant that accountability does not turn into a singularly concentrated power to censor. The concern is reasonable, but the extreme example is not.
I'm all for that, but only if we abolish internet anonymity. Freedom of speech is not predilected on being able to say them anonymously behind false identities such that it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to hold people to account for the things that they spout.
This comment shows that you know nothing of jusrisprudence and legal precisents. This is precisely why you should trust others to define this - they can use their brain in a competent way.
@@SocialDownclimberGo outside of a police station, insult either Mo or @!! ah, and assuming you're still around see what the cops do, and then talk about "no thoughtcrime."
@@Jmart786 Can you cite examples? I can only find 3 in recent times Jordan Parlour, for advocating an attack on a migrant hotel in Leeds, Tyler Kay of Northampton, also called for migrant hotels to be attacked and Lucy Connolly for tweeting "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it." ** Edit should have done a better search. 3 unnamed in Cumbria and Julie Sweeney, who admitted the offence.
The problem our Governments have become too dictatorial since Blair. London is now the 3rd highest for surveillance equipment in the world ,next to Taiyuan and Wuxi in China. No other Western city appears in the top ten. We have nowhere near the freedoms of the US when it comes to freedom of expression. When a man can get 20 months for shouting at a dog and using a word that offends someone, it a word not a brick, we are getting stupid. It takes a lot for the Brits to riot so maybe government should be doing more to address their concerns.
It wasn't "The Brits", it was a tiny number of fascist thugs, joined by a number of people of very low intelligence who are easily led. The shame of it is that it's mostly the easily led that are going to prison and not the hardcore fascists, who make sure they are very difficult to identify when it all kicks off.
Full of cameras, yet people get mugged and jumped by gangs on a daily basis. But hey, they say it’s for your own safety. I’d never live in such authoritarian shitholes even if I was part of the sheltered elite making lots of money
Why? Can you articular the motivating argument for free speech, as applied to a situation such as this? I can't. I think people are irrationally dogmatic in their reverence for free speech. It's not a panacea, nor is it impossible to distinguish classes of speech such that we need to apply just one standard regardless of circumstances. Nor is speech powerless and thus harmless. It's also not necessary to centralize any determinations of what's true or not; and not necessary to centralize determinations of what's harmful - i.e. we can hold speakers accountable without granting "the government" any control over speech - just as we frankly already have for centuries via libel & fraud laws. Sure, there _are_ risks - so let's talk constructively about avoiding those, rather than worshipping free speech beyond all reason. Going further, we probably protect some kinds of speech too little, even today - SLAPP suits involving defamation are a problem. Why not re-evaluate which protections are appropriate, and which not?
@MoireFly The government is not infallible. Who are they to determine what is hate speech and what is not? We essentially have blasphemy laws now, when religions absolutely deserve criticism. The government messes with the darwinism of ideas, if people are free to speak we can have our speech questioned and understand when we are in error, or we can hear others speak and learn from their ideas. The government instead bars certain forms of speech deeming them harmful when they could be the ones causing harm. For example a Brit was arrested for saying Mormonism is a cult. Is that hate speech or a criticism?
@@MoireFly I would rather people are free to speak their minds, no matter how abhorrent I might find their monologue/dialogue.. I would rather it be public, rather than behind encryption, or going back to using the mail service for "privacy", how better to gather intelligence than allowing people to say what they will. Surely people openly voicing their opinion gives others the opportunity to attempt to educate, change perspective etc.. Communication is communication..
@@MoireFly Either you're allowed to say whatever you want that doesn't actively advocate real violence or you don't have free speech. If these laws existed in the 50s when gay people were being castrated and homosexuality was considered obscene where do you think we'd be? We wouldn't be a world leader in LGBTQ rights, we'd be socially the same as we were in the 50s and then only changed because people had the right to say what they thought. The right to speak your mind is literally the single most important right on the planet
@@TheLinkoln18 Thank you for your cogent, thoughtful response. However, I think you're overlooking or insufficiently emphasizing 2 important aspects: (1) the reality zero human beings have the time, attention, and mental capacity to actually carefully consider all that we hear and read to the extent that all speech can contribute to the kind of open education that you mention. Therefore, we need to take mental shortcuts, and these shortcuts are obvious enough that they're easily exploitable by others. It's not an intellectual flaw that mere education can fix; its and intrinsic limitation due to our brains, and likely even simply physics (nothing can be infinitely smart). We're _not_ going to fix this; we need to learn to deal with it. In short: nobody is Sherlock Holmes. and (2) that we don't need a perfect Oracle that can ban all falsehoods and permit all truths; we don't even need a law with zero downsides. We don't need the law to enforce perfection; the gap between the kind of constructive debate you're describing and incitement - even indirect, non-specific incitement - is vast. It's not a coincidence that people express lots of concern about this surely flawed law, yet nobody can actually find and example that stands up to any scrutiny of somebody being convicted or arrested for an opinion that's even vaguely necessary for constructive debate. And the current law isn't even any good; no debate on my side! Yet even so, it's just not the kind of Orwellian nightmare you fear. Having laws the encourage a little more thought and care by penalizing encouragement to be violent is a win with only very small downsides. Those downsides are a very reasonable price to pay and do not represent a meaningful chilling effect, _and_ we can surely do even better than the overly broad law of today.
One small correction: The relevant parts of the 2003 Communications Act were already in law via the 1984 Telecommunications Act. The 2003 act more or less just updated the 1984 law for the internet age. I'll leave it to you if you think its appropriate that this law was passed in 1984.
@@funny7 You did by omission, by specifically saying _at the moment._ If you were really absolutely disgusted by this country you would have mentioned the last 14 years.
I don't really care that people are getting sentenced for hate speech online when it's actually hate speech, but a lot of it isn't actually inciting any sort of violence from what I've seen, just reposts of videos of events that are occuring. What is shocking to me is the speed of the sentencing. Sometimes, it's less than 2 days to pass a 3 year prison sentence, whereas people doing actual crime aren't getting sentenced for months.
Of course they should - to the extent that we can come up with a law that works and is reasonable and considers the risks of chilling effects, and have sufficient proof to satisfy that law. But yeah, we very much should be more willing to hold malicious or reckless media to account in cases such as this.
@@MoireFly We should, but you know very well that it doesn't happen. I'd hazard a guess you're happy with that, as they are part of the status quo that you align with.
@@calvinfatman7918 Lol. I have no idea where that ad hominem came from, and you're not even coherently making any case, just vaguely impugning my motives. Not exactly classy. Speak for yourself - you clearly have an opinion - and not for me.
@@MoireFly Re read what you put. "Of course they should - to the extent that we can come up with a law that works and is reasonable and considers the risks of chilling effects, and have sufficient proof to satisfy that law." Tiptoeing around, and presenting it as a special case. Self awareness isn't your forte
@joedowning2428 so are non-threatening memes and jokes. The things that people are actually being arrested for. Arresting people for actual violence and threats, fine. Arresting people for anything deemed offensive, tyrannical. Nice try though
The question is who gets to decide? The UK is lucky in not having experienced a dictatorship on their own turf, however as a German I see a billion ways how this legislature can and will be abused. Mind you we also have a conditional freedom of expression, however our laws are a lot clearer in what is and what isn't allowed. The UK's seems like it is intentionally ambiguous so that it can be wielded as a sword of suppression against political/ ideological enemies and keeps everyone on edge as, at least as it appears to me on the outside, people simply can't predict what could get them in trouble. Calling publicly for genocide against Israelis? Apparently no problem. Calling publicly against immigration? Apparently a problem. In Germany we had in the same last year pro-Hamas rallies being cracked down upon as well as far right idiots chanting "Germany for the Germans, foreigners out" feeling the same weight of the law. And it appears at least to me that a lot of what is fueling the protests on the right the seemingly unequal treatment under that vague legislature, with police at times even retreating from minority riots rather than cracking down on them. So if people see the laws not being upheld by the state why shouldn't they do the same? If the law didn't apply to all the protests from publicly calling for genocide and terror to people opposing state authority taking abused children into protective care, why shouldn't they be able to do the same? If the laws were clear and upheld rigourously I doubt we would have seen the unhinged protests of the UK's right in the last couple of weeks. From their perspective everyone gets to do whatever they want and they are the only ones that face consequences for it. What e.g. happened to all the people spreading the fake information about Israel having bombed a hospital in Gaza in the beginning of the current war there? Did they receive the same treatment as the ones spreading the fake information about the attacker that murdered the three girls? Didn't that fake information also trigger riots and protests?
You think the UK hasn't experienced dictatorship on its own turf? FPTP effectively allows for one-party authoritarianism in rolling 5-year electoral periods. Any party that wins a majority in Parliament so long as they can stamp out any rebellion they can ram through anything they want into law and nobody can stop them. Look at the past 14 years of Tory government, especially after they didn't need the Lib Dems for coalition partners anymore after 2015.
I don‘t understand this hardline view that immigration is good for us and you cannot say otherwise. Why must we stick to this? Even if it is good for us in some incalculable way, we are still a democracy, and if the majority say let‘s end mass migration that‘s what the politicians are supposed to do.
@@NoRezos Wayne o’rouke was arrested for misinformation about the murder of the three girls, is spreading misinformation bad? Yes, but bad enough to warrant getting arrested for accidentally lying to a large audience is a bit authoritarian
@@aleccino All mention on this video are undesved and are attacking people that just want to be safe and their kids to be safe in their own country. Also this anti-free speech laws YOU KNOW are racial laws that will only be enforce against white people on 98% of cases.
Freedom of speech must be codified into the UK constitution. Without freedom of speech goverments are free to determine what is 'false' or 'hateful' and that is a dangerous precedent.
Where were you people when people were getting jail sentences in Spain for editing their faces on top of a Christ figure? Now that it actually serves to prevent hate speech you raise your voices?
Prosecutor George Shelley said Dunn had posted an image showing a group of men, Asian in appearance, at Egremont crab fair 2025, with the caption: “Coming to a town near you.” Dunn stated nothing more than the government policy to disperse immigrants. The fact they interpreted this to be racist just shows their double standards and content for the working class. Dunn was promptly thrown in jail...
A society more forcefully using hate speech laws is sadly a society in decline and that is unsure of its own political foundations. Surely, this must be seen as a inception of a move towards more tyranny, however well intended (which it almost always seem to be)
I think since hate can be used so broadly, having something like, "speech that provably brings physical harm unto someone should be punished." so if you call for a riot and nothing happens you're fine, if your comments provably had some contribution to the riots which then lead to physical harm, you hold some of the accountability.
In the USA which has Free Speech baked in - you can still be prosecuted for exactly these kinds of tweets "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action"
that holds true for most if not all western countries, doesn't stop populists from bending over backwards to make a big rights violation out of nothing.
That's a completely reasonable limitation to free speech. In the UK we are seeing fascist socialist for the first time in a generation and we are waking up to the fact it's a big problem
There are times that US Free Speech annoys me, but those annoyances seem petty compared to police action for "offending" someone. It seems too subjective to be uniformly enforced and seems to cater to snowflakes.
The UK has ALWAYS had problems coping with freedom of speech, which is in part why we have the United States. There's the sense that the Govt is in charge of people, rather than being OF and FOR the people. Its a difficult one to solve
@@Fab666. I'm not sure I understand the point. Nor how they relate to each other. The right to bear arms was a provision to set up militias to protect against....the British 🙂
The problem arises when people are being changed for the hate bit. I do not believe it is any governments right to regulate hate. There is a clear difference when it comes to incitement but that is a very specific thing. I am gay and personally, though I have no desire to be around homophobic people, I wouldn't dream of requiring them to be arrested so long as 1. there is an understanding that a basic level of equality that shall not be altered is established for all classes of citizens (within reason) and 2.there is no attempt or desire to cause ACTUAL harm, meaning either physical damage, destruction of property or concerted and targeted harassment. The idea that someone should be arrested because it offended someone is horrifying to me.
Wdym, can’t the government control what the citizens feel? You nailed it, it’s just an authoritarian measure aggravating whatever problem it’s trying to tackle.
The word Freedom is the most abused word in the English language. So we have 'Freedom From' and 'Freedom To' which means the word Freedom must be qualified in the context in which it is being used. However, who is the arbiter of this raises further questions. Even codifying the word in Law raises the issue of control by the state over the individual.
Probably because people are being too literal. Nothing in the law is to be taken at face value. Everything in the law has nuance, 'freedom' for anything was never 'freedom with no strings attached'. Also, you live in a country with laws, there is already substantial control over all individuals.
English is the only language that distinguishes between freedom and liberty. The word "freedom" is massively inflated, as the aristocrats want us to believe we have freedom when they simply give us slightly longer chains and slightly bigger cages.
There is misinterpretation of the word 'freedom'. Yes, you are a free person, as you and everyone else should be. But you are not free from consequences. Are you free to lock someone else in your/their room as a punishment? No, you are reducing their freedom. The best interpretation of 'freedom' is that your freedom ends, where someone's else freedom begins. Usually, for decent folks - don't perform acts you wouldn't be happy about yourself.
Re the Chambers tweet: one of my favourite social media adages is Poe’s Law, where a message is liable to be taken seriously if there is no evidence of light-heartedness in the message. I.e. if Chambers had added an emoji denoting a joke, he would not be taken seriously.
@@FuzzyRiy that would be dependent on the situation wouldn't it! if you simply said in a quiet voice that horse is gay! Did you mean gay as in happy or a homophobic slur? But if you're in the middle of a riot and screaming swearing and goading officers and screaming "You're horse is Gay!" it's likely to be deemed to be homophobic slurs against an officer! Doesn't matter its an animal its still illegal! Remember police animals are treated as officers! Im not saying its right or wrong thats just how the law is! Don't be a tool and be at a riot!
@@FuzzyRiy You can be arrested for drawing an octopus with 13 tentacles. Doesn't mean you'll get fined or convicted. The gay horse guy (almost 20 years ago now!) did _not_ pay any fine, and the case was dropped. The problem here wasn't just the law, it was the police officer - and that's a different problem, though perhaps we should respect that there will always be a grey area, and thus cannot demand perfection from police. They made the wrong call - but the consequences were limited and lessons learnt. Then, years later, the law in question was amended too. Sounds like the system worked!
the context of the claims have absolutely nothing to do with whether people will face legal consequences for their words because the law makes clear that context doesnt make a difference because if hurt could have even hypothetically been caused by the words, then it is a criminal case. So really the only way you can avoid facing legal consequences online is to either avoid certain buzz words the algorithms will pick up, or try to use internet platforms where you can be as anonymous as possible
Ah yes, arresting people that were spreading lies and hate speech is the same as calling Xi Jinping, Winnie the Pooh and disappearing (probably dead) or Woman rightfully protesting the want for equality and rights for woman, and then being wrongly arrested. Stfu with your poorly thought out drivel.
If people are making bomb threats or threatening violence online I feel like that might be an exception. Criticising the government or a group of people even when using foul or racist languange should be protected by free speech. But a post on the internet saying you are going to blow up a hospital should be taken seriously
Exactly. I wonder what these free speech advocates crying foul now would say about how even mentioning the word "bomb" or anything "explosive" like a "grenade" in an airport or on a flight would land someone in serious antiterrorism trouble. It's been this way since 9/11, yet nobody's come out and said "hey it's violating free speech".
The first comment you mentioned could get you arrested in the US too. That comment could be mistaken for an actual threat. There are certain things you just don't joke about. So that one shouldn't be controversial at all.
![ไข้ขึ้นเลย! เมื่อแฝดโดนจัดเต็มวัคซีนครบ2เดือน🤒 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.54 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2VHItnyyvY/mqdefault.jpg)
reminder even north korea has a law saying its citizens have a right to freedom of speech. what matters is how the authorities actually act.
Yep. We have free speech on paper but then we have the catch of "you can speak freely, *unless*..."
Though in some cases you want that catch to avoid panics (eg. shouting fire in a crowded space) and as far as I remember freedoms already only go up until they substantially affect others (aka my freedom to throw a punch (without repercussions) ends where your nose begins kinda deal)
Free speech yes, hate speech jail you go.
@@meskahmusic so not freedom of speech
Just because they say that they have free speech DOESN'T mean they actually have free speech.
Heck, I don't even think North Koreans even know what free speech is.
Never give a power to your ally in government that you wouldn't be comfortable giving to your worst political enemy.
That includes the power to spread misinformation to incite rioting.
Great point.
I'm just going to stop watching the news a using the Internet being in the know will give me a stroke ignorance is bliss
@@lellyparker Free speech advocates always make the error of not realising that many people are total and utter abject morons
@@lellyparker What do you propose to fix that problem?
The "grossly offensive" meme the man jailed for 8 weeks posted was a photo of an Asian gang with the caption "coming to a town near you".
I see far edgier memes from retirees on my local community Facebook group. If that sentiment is illegal they're going to have to lock up half the country
Probably a good thing that the message is clearly communicated that this kind of race-baiting is not OK and will be punished, right?
Baiting rioters isn't harmless; and you can be sure that the retirees on your local community facebook group will stop edging on violent gangs if they suffer consequences for it. It's not like they didn't know what was going to happen; the riots were already in full swing.
That behavior is simply not at all OK.
@MoireFly this repression will lead to more violence. It's better to use speach to make yourself known that to breed resentment
@@peacejohn4344 I expect that this accountability already has and will continue to encourage people to take more care before they fan the flames of violent riots. It's already achieving its desired effect, and will take years for that to wane through forgetfulness.
I see absolutely no reason to expect that holding those egging on violent rioters accountable will somehow quixotically encourage more violent riots, especially since the whole episode was clearly built on a house of lies by malign and sometimes intentionally manipulative foreign actors.
@@MoireFly I think that’s a terrible, terrible idea which sets a worrying precedent.
It’s reasonable to have laws against quite specific speech like inciting violence. It is not reasonable to imprison people for something as vague as “race baiting”.
Just think how easily that same law could be used to censor condemnation of any religion or nation.
If Muslims posted similar memes about rising Hindu Nationalism in the UK, should they be imprisoned? What about a similar meme with a picture of the IDF, condemning the influence of Israel on politics? Or would it be anti-white hatred to post the same meme with a picture of the rioters?
@@MoireFly The next time the riots happen, they will just be 10x worse, and this may just spawn flat out terrorist organizations. The reason they're happening in the first place is nobody's doing anything about crime and housing prices are rising, things tied at least in part to massive migration waves. Pointing out that fact just gets you branded a fascist/racist whatever. So the current extant resentment and feeling repressed will just increase. People will still hold these views but they will just reach for more violent tactics in the future, and those who do to jail will 100% just get radicalized. I think it's an absolutely horrible idea to jail keyboard warriors not partaking in the violence, it validates *all* the propaganda floating around about how 'we will not be listened to blah blah'.
I don't think people should be jailed for having distasteful views be it anti-immigration or misogyny. Setting fire to doorways of hotels however absolutely put them in jail!
Okay, but what if people's distasteful views, and their propagation online, spurs others into racist action? You know, like GBeebies and Farridge have done?
@@josephharrison8354GBeebies is a good one lmao
For having views alone perhaps, but if you're actively trying to genuinely incite violence, I do see the point of the law
@@ProsecutorZekrom I can't claim credit, I'm afraid - James O'Brien coined it after GBN made the defence that it can't be held culpable for misinformation because it's an entertainment rather than a news outlet.
People should definitely go to jail for Sexism
Imprisoned for a meme. That says it all. Censorship. Enjoy it. You and your media let them win.
Fuck you we did not ask for this
Sigh. People like you really are all the same. You couldn't tell the plain truth if your life depended on it. The explanation was clear enough but it's not what you want to hear, so you distort it to suit your own purposes. Pathetic.
I'm not against certain well-defined limits on speech. But "hate" is so vague. It's like having a law that says _"It's illegal to be bad."_
Have you read the legislation? It definitely doesn't say "it's illegal to be bad"
This comment shows that you know nothing of jusrisprudence and legal precisents. This is precisely why you should trust others to define this - they can use their brain in a competent way.
No more vague than so many other aspects of law, including ones relating to speech.
Ultimately it will come down to judicial decisions to precisely draw the boundaries.
I've read the full definition in the actual law and it can be argued both ways.
When we see a pensioner who was caring for his sick wife put away for years over a social media post while hardened criminals are set free to make room I venture to say the law is being abused right now.
@@diannelovesyou nice bot comment, copy and pasting everything
The 'direct incitement' is one thing, but let's not pretend that the UK Government isn't going to bend this definition draconianly.
@@faceybrian404 thats hate speech im reporting you
Yes, it's deliberately vague as must pro-government laws are.
The government don’t interpret the law, the independent judiciary does.
@@aidan-4759before it gets to that point, the uk government can arrest anyone and harass people.
@@aidan-4759the biggest downside of the common.
Too much interpretation
Reminds me of that time a teenager posted snoop dog lyrics on facebook and got arrested
When the lyrics are so fire, you get arrested for arson.
And in that case, IIRC, the "offended" person was a police officer on the local hate crimes unit who "volunteered to be offended" in the public interest...
Or the autistic girl who said a police officer looked like her lesbian grandma.
She was white -> lower tier
@CaptainBollocks.... Oh good I'm not the only 1 who realised this. I want them to start arresting rappers not because I think this law makes sense but because I don't think it does. This would mean that people would see how stupid this law is and get rid of it.
Arresting people for directly calling for violence is one thing, but people have been arrested and prosecuted for far less in recent weeks and the whole thing feels positively authoritarian. I voted for Labour but I would never have voted for this.
It's a Tory law that they are using mostly.
@@coinopanimator I didn't vote for that either.
@@coinopanimator It doesn't really matter , the point is they're actively engaging with it.
Who has been arrested for far less? Give us examples or you are just talking bs
The Tories bought in these laws not Starmer but you didn't mind when you thought they would only be used on peaceful environmental protests and anti-Brexit protestors who made a noise like Steve Bray. Did you shout when Just Stop Oil people went to prison for 5 years for peacefully stopping a motorway - no you didn't. So why are you shouting when people who take part or inspire arson, riots, looting and street violence get rightfully punished? Only one reason - you support the riots.
The right wing, like their heroes Trump, Putin, Johnson + Farage, don't think laws or taxes should apply to them. They only support democracy when they win and if they don't react with violent riots and their beloved free speech is only concerned for their speech, no one else's. They are actually, knowingly or unknowingly, working for Putin and are part of his war on the West, they are not patriots, they are dividing and wrecking this country.
"But your honor, Shakespeare!"
"Damn. Case dismissed."
works every time...Romeo! Get the stretch...
I genuinely don't understand the logic behind this dismissal. Shakespeare wasn't announcing those words to the world from his own mouth, he wrote them to be spoken by a character in a fictional play. That's not the same as writing it in the newspaper as a personal quote for all to see (for example), or tweeting it.
A new low!
This dismissal makes no sense! The context couldn't be further away from jokingly saying you're going to commit an act of terror. Our justice system is too soft.
@@mvnkycheez Did you read the Oxfordshire report on the grooming gang scandal in that town and what was said to children as young as 11 years old by police and prosecutors? It seems that free speech is quite lenient in at least one direction.
I’m an American but a passionate lover of the UK. This makes me very thankful that the First Amendment hardwires freedom of speech into our government. The UK is on a very dangerous slippery slope right now, for many reason.
All of the Bill of Rights is really nice tbh. All 10 amendments. Wish there was something like that even in the EU.
A US citizen went to prison for talking shit on runescape in the US.
Hate Speech is good when used against my enemies, but bad when used against my friends, is often the opinion of the commenters.
Think this country is all downhill, it's urmmmm it's over.
this coun try has been going down hill for around 15 years
Hit the nail on the head. I hope more people realise what you've said, but I fear many don't care as long as it is in their favour.
@@ausername9190 Its been going down for 80 at least.
@@ausername9190 Since the 80`s pal. Its been down hill for almost 50 years.
@@ausername9190 britain has been going downhill since labour first came to power.
Hate speech needs to be abolished as a concept from law, as hate is a very subjective term. The only limits on speech should be on incitement to violence or a crime, direct and credible threats, and malicious defamation, otherwise you don't live in a truly free society. These issues should be dealt with via civil society, not by the justice system.
It ain't subjective, everyone knows what a bigot is and how they behave.
Marching on the streets and shouting "Jews will not replace us" while burning down a refugee camp is straight up hate.
@@leglez3977 Sure but are phrases like "From the river to the sea" or other various pro-Palestine and anti-Israel chants hate speech? I'd say no they're simply showing support for certain borders for any hypothetical Palestinian state but people like Patel would claim they incite hatred for Israeli citizens. There's clearly an element of subjectivity here.
Is posting "from the river to the sea" inciting violence? Who draws the line?
There were black flags, signs saying "this is why the rocks and trees must speak", "globalise the intifada" and they weren't arrested, and probably still won't be under two tier keir..
Thats calling for the destruction of the state of israle and implies that palistians will take back the land, displacing all the jews there. Mass expulsions like this are gennocide.
No such thing as 2 tier policing though....
Spreading lies and misinformation should be a prison sentence. Purposely causing hatred or inciting violence is obejctively wrong.
@@chaosXP3RTThe media spreads lies and disinformation all day long, so you would outlaw them?
literally enforcing blasphemy laws. tldr didnt cover people being arrested for "anti establishment rhetoric" or criticising islam
You mean O’Rourke who pleaded guilt to the charge between 28/01/2024 and 11/08/2024 published written material, which was threatening, abusive or insulting intending thereby to stir up racial hatred or having regard to all the circumstance.
That one?
Criticising or spreading hate
@@Sahanawaj_criticising, their are absolutely valid concerns
@@ActiveGamingUKwhich is legal
@@ActiveGamingUK Constructive criticism and calling for violence aren't same thing
Reading the comments, I think it was a mis-step to not include the actual text/memes being prosecuted in the mentioned stories - everyone seems to have taken away the false impression that they directly incited violence (obviously prosecutable) when in reality one simply said “Coming to a town near you.” on a photo of migrants which is arguably just a material description of reality rather than a normative prescription to do anything.
Well, author can end up in jail for showing the proper meme, can't blame him. It would need to be published by non British fella.
@@andrzejnadgirl2029it is cowardly and unbecoming of proper journalism.
@@ThinkAnotherStep what happened in the case of that meme? What was the outcome?
Yup. TLDR not dealing with the main event of the story, as usual.
Anyone going to help me out? I can't find any information whatsoever about this incident.
The problem lies in who you trust to determine what is and is not "hate" speech. I know I don't trust my government to do this. Lately it is feeling like, "1984".
Who would you trust with that?
Judges and juries determine that, not the government. It is a written law after all and been proven throughout the decades in courts as what counts and what does not. It is fairly hard to get hit with a hate speech/hate crime violation though if you aren't being particularly blunt with it.
This comment shows that you know nothing of jusrisprudence and legal precisents. This is precisely why you should trust others to define this - they can use their brain in a competent way.
The government doesn't decide that.
When the law in being interpreted not in your defence but to get you punished it's a lost case
Someone got 2 years in prison for racism and shouting at a police dog. These sentences are draconian. Neither of those things in any sane world are criminal offences, whatever one thinks of them.
Aren't prisons overcrowding too?? What is this country doing, such a joke
in Brazil, a woman got arrested for *8 years* for racism.
Heck, even murder might get you less years.
A cultural revolution against external ideologies and back to Britishness is coming. It has to. It's heartbreaking to see a country I care about so much becoming this authoritarian, two-tiered policing state. Return to Britishness!
It never was as you imagined it, and it's not as you imagine it now.
"It's not up to us to determine whether the police were right to invoke these powers"?
Yes it fucking is.
i think they meant themselves particularly, as a news source. obviously it is up to us as the public.
they mean the channel obviously
no
What TLDR? That's their choice, mate... Nothing to do with you
No it isn't. If the powers exist then they are there to be used. The general public does not get to tell the police when to start and when to stop being the police.
the uk has fallen a decade ago and now were just watching its sad corpse twitch
Wishful thinking….
The U.K. is fine and dandy.
It has its problems, but nothing like you’re trying to imply.
@@eddiecalderone open your eyes. Look at London, do some research
Doesn't matter if you can go to prison or not the fact you can get a knock on the door from the Police for a social media post is a worrying trend.
I only see this getting worse if the media keeps downplaying or ignoring this authoritarianism.
And the person who broke a police woman’s nose and attacked 2 other officers, the person who stabbed an army officer 17 times still haven’t been charged. I wonder why.
Ironically TLDR videos getting to the point where I don't even watch them, I just skip to the comments for a summary
More honest than these presstitutes for sure
To be honest tldr has been leaning left, and I feel they are not reporting all the information anymore
@@2memeornot224leaning left is anything I disagree with
@@2memeornot224the sad part is I think they think they don't have a bias. You can see the left wing bias just how they word their thumbnails.
short answer: Yes
long answer: Yes, but we will only prosecute certain groups that disagree with government
Why are the people in charge of Britain so anti British?
A massive case of white guilt and self hate to a suicidal level.
Because the voters of Britain are.
@@SirAntoniousBlock don't think for one second that voters get what they want in this country
@@riverraven7359 In every country where a free vote is allowed, people get the government they deserve.
@@SirAntoniousBlock bullshit. In every country the voting system is different and yet rich people always end up on top. What were you saying about a free vote?
You left out instances of people sharing non-harmful memes and being prosecuted, and also MPs actually sharing misinformation that directly led to harm. Not very impartial journalism
Because TLDR is a far left ghei prop channel
Can you give an example of someone sharing non-harmful memes and being prosecuted - as this didn't happen
@@davidioanhedges"Coming to a town near you" Ow it hurts! I'm being caused harm by some words that say something is coming towards me!
@@C.I... Poor David crying 😆
Don't forget "Hope not hate"
You introduced this by saying that the riots "engulfed the county for the last month". That's a vast exaggeration. They lasted for about two weeks and were very sporadic and localized. The overwhelming majority of the UK population saw no riots and went about their normal lives without incident.
BTW, are you going to comment on the UK police commissioner threatening to extradite _US citizens_ from the US for tweets relating to the riots. US Twitter, safe behind the First Amendment, thought that was HILARIOUS and the UK is now a laughing stock over there.
And it's also malicious framing. Like 80% of them went off without any disorder, where there was disorder it was less than 5% of those present doing it.
Calling it 'riots' is Starmer's framing to justify a crackdown. Disorder a lot worse and more systematic, such as that of the BLM, was previously called 'protest'.
Yeah, but the other side mobs armed with knifes and machetes are completely fine, and can use social networks unbothered. Two tier law
Are the UK folks finally waking up to the growing Police State being created around them? Racist language is awful but these arrests are political, not criminal.
The "UK folks" voted in the Conservative party who passed these laws. 😂
Get yer head out yer arse. This is in response to violent extreme terrorism from thugs who descended on neighbourhoods that were not their own.
We're under attack and we're just defending ourselves. The actual silent majority supports these arrests
@@SirAntoniousBlock labour is also passing laws, polls have shown that the majority of britons support draconian policy such as the death penalty
@@SirAntoniousBlock labour passed this law. Stop lying through your teeth
In the UK now, you get a harsher sentence for threatening violence online than you do for actually committing violence in the real world.
You’re going to need to cite the sentencing guidelines for that claim
@@Shibbymatt I mean, this isn't true at all.
@@drummingtildeathbeen asleep the last few weeks?
@@00dude3 a handful of people have quite rightly been jailed for inciting violence. Things like encouraging others to burn down mosques with people in them. If you can't see why that's a big issue, I can't help you son.
Either way, the penalty for burning down a mosque would be significantly larger than for encouraging others to do it.
Obviously slapping someone would carry a lesser sentence than telling others to commit murder. Again, if you can't see why I can't fix your cognitive deficiencies.
@@drummingtildeath People should be able to say what they like, giving the state even more power than it already has is never the answer.
ppl posting shit - 4 years of jail
ppl attacks 5 armed police - free
Guess what this has to do with treating different people depending on their background?
Daily reminder that the United States of America is the only place in the world that has freedom of speech
Daily reminder everything is fine everything is fine everything is fine
Except for the fact that the US in notorious for cracking down on criticism of Israel, has don't ask don't tell in Florida schools and has taken to the mass banning of literature
Aus isn't too bad but i despise the e safety commission
It is also the only place in the word where a candidate in democratic elections promise to "be dictator on day one" and to "fix the country so well you will not have to vote again".
You mean apart from the banned books, empty libraries and teachers being forbiden to speak with chidlren about those topics that the conservatives don't like?
The fact that Shakespeare could've gotten arrested in modern day Britain is definitely something else.
Very lazy analogy.
It is as bad and demented as when someone complains about law enforcement decades ago with contemporary legislation in mind.
well ud hope we moved on since then.
It's certainly something else, because it's not a fact. People still put on productions of Henry VI part II today without being arrested. There is a big difference between writing a fictional character who advocates murder, and advocating it yourself.
@@eddiecalderone Well, clearly it wasn't considered a lazy analogy in court when it literally got a man acquitted.
@@dannyclub09
Hence why the acquittal
Slow slide? It just to call it what it is, and that is the fact that one simply does not have free speech in the UK. Free speech involves allowing hate speech, involves allowing people to say offensive things, otherwise you don't have free speech.
As an attorney from the US, I just want be clear that the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech is not all encompassing and does not protect every form of speech. Speech that is made with the purpose to incite violence is not protected. Under the SCOTUS case of Brandenburg, we are given the imminent lawless action test to evaluate if such speech is protected.
Victorian Britain jailed poor people for having debt. Don't think that jailing people for online memes is beyond them.
Actions have consequences.
@@multipl3memes lol
@@multipl3translation: having an opinion has consequences
@@TheCommentor-inciting violence has consequences
@@Bean_guy2 yes because every single person who was posting memes about how draconian these UK rules are was inciting violence, 100% of them and not a single one was just stating their opinion
Even incitement is a slippery slope: if someone politely asked you to give them all your money and you agree would that be theft? if someone suggested without coercion you jumped off a bridge and you did, would that be murder? is the person being told to do something devoid of any agency and responsibility? Threats and incitement should be reported and the police should have an obligation monitor and prepare for the possibility of a crime taking place, but intentions/words and thoughts cannot be prosecuted. Prosecuting intentions is another major slippery slope, as every action you take could be interpreted as a "threat" or a crime waiting to happen: you looking at someone funny (are you going to assault them?), you smiling at someone (sxsl harassment?), you asking someone for a tour of their house (planning for burglary?).
Incitement to violence...
Sedition...
I live in India and the entire opposition was jailed entirely like that :D
Funny how I remembered all Indians living in UK
"We are not that kind of Asian"
"We support free spech" then blaming Islam
Edit : Sorry, not all but some.
@@NoRezos Muslims do not support free speech, they allahuakbar the people who speak out, so to me those Indians you're talking about seem to be absolutely based. People who reject free speech (which also by the way includes almost all of the political left, since they are the ones who push for these hate speech laws) should not be given the benefit of that right, that would be only fair. But instead we get 2-tier policing where one group can in all seriousness call for the eradication of an entire country and its population and not even get a slap on the wrist, while another is being jailed for posting sarcastic memes or being upset about racially targeted sexual abuse by a certain demographic.
when?
See the problem for me is the term "grossly offensive" it's stupidly ambiguous and while you might think it's fine because it's only being used on people who belong to groups that you are not part of it could eventually be used on your group. Some examples of people who've been fined by this are A man who wanted to make his dog the least cute thing possible as his wife wouldn't shut up about it so he trained it to do a roman salute and asked it questions you might think a no no German would answer yes to and he sent it to his close mates but then it went viral. There was also a black woman who quotes a rap and used the nword in a tweet so I guess even black people aren't allowed to say it now.
we go off of convention which is the same as many of our laws
@alexanderwiles2003 we shouldn't. Laws must be clear and objective. But these ones aren't, because grey areas allow for selective prosecution
The book 1984 never felt so real as now, poor uk people im sorry for you guys
“The UK is not a free country..”
- Facts
And this is why Freedom of Speech is so important!
Good lord. Could you imagine rhe nightmare of being jailed for several weeks for an offensive meme?? Practically all of us in the USA would then have criminal records. The extend that the UK is policing free speech seems tad bit insane.
_'Practically all of us in the USA'_
Have guns?
_'The extend that the UK is policing free speech seems tad bit insane.'_
The extend that the US is obsessed with god and guns seems tad bit insane.
@@SirAntoniousBlock oh boy still crying and seething about guns
Only speech inciting imminent lawless action should be banned. All other speech should be allowed. Rude, hateful, offensive, good, rational, it doesn’t matter, they should all be legal
England is lost. They never thought that this “well meaning law” would be abused!!! Who gets to decide what constitutes what???
My problem with these laws is that offence and humour are both very subjective.
I think the imperfect result of this is just watch yourself to make sure you're not just being wholly hateful. I don't even like Chappelle but he has been trying to qualify his critcisism of trans people so that it doesn't incite violence. Issue I see is that, say he decides to go the other way, at what point can we say he isn't culpable because he is a comedian and someone might find his rhetoric funny? It's an impossible question to answer as most of this is but I would say that Gervais and Chapelle are both major contributors to the normalization of hate towards trans people. I'm not saying they should be held liable but it's also not something you can necessarily ignore. I think that at the end of the day most court cases' results are very subjective to a jury or judge regardless and so it will have to be a case by case basis.
@@thomasandrewclifford By that metric, any criticism of current trans policies (bathrooms, sports) could be considered normalisation of hatred towards trans people though.
@@itsmarmalade I'd say just as with our current migration debate there is a difference behind criticism and hate. You can be critical but the moment you're accusing trans women of being predators trying to abuse women and children you've gone beyond the scope of debate and into something far beyond civil discourse. Transphobes need to get better at actually engaging people on the topic if they want to be heard in the same way rioters and racists won't be getting heard if the way they express themselves breaches laws.
@@thomasandrewclifford When I qoute state statistics about trans rates of peadophilia or the crime rate per capita of immigrants/blacks and browns, simply making light of this could see a judge declare my intention was hateful! 0 laws on speech is the way forward.
@@thomasandrewcliffordA man recently got arrested for publicly insulting Al - l@h. In the isles. Ia this ok with u?
As an American, it does seem to me that the threshold for prosecution is much lower in the UK. In the US we have the Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) precedent that only allows prosecution for speech in the case it’s intended and likely to result in imminent lawlessness. The standard of proving that here seems to be higher than would allow for the prosecution for some of the tweets that have landed people in jail in the UK.
This is free speech, Only free speech absolutism allows incitement, we are totally F'd if this goes unstopped, literally just out of the red arm band handbook.
That is a vast understatement. People are jailed in the isles for being edgy, nowhere near incitemebt.
The eagerness of some people in this comment section to lock up others over speech concerns me - hateful or not, comedic or not, regardless of the political party in charge, I do not trust the government to be the ones determining which words land you in prison - you fight hateful speech, with more, better speech.
Exactly. Some people are far too keen to have the government tell them what they are allowed to say knowing it will crack down on people other than themselves, and they may well find themselves victim to this one day.
"The government" isn't the one determining this. There are police officers, prosecutors, laws, jurisprudence, judges and juries involved.
It won't be a trivial line to draw; some will be rightfully acquitted; some will be borderline; and some (very few) will alas be wrongfully convicted - just as in many other criminal matters. However, let's also not forget that out-of-control algorithmically amplified incitement has real harms. It is sadly true that no enforcement is free of all negative side effects, but that simply does not mean that lawlessness is better.
The eagerness of some people in the comment section to falsely draw analogies to comedy or to pretend that it's impossible to distinguish between speech concerns me. Free speech _is_ powerful. That's kind of the whole point. But no, it's not all the same, and no, that power isn't harmless either. If you try to convince a jury that a bit of comedy is incitement then the ones left laughing will likely be them. You're painting risks here that are almost absurd in the extremity of your claims. But I get where you're coming from, and _yes_ we should be concerned and vigilant that accountability does not turn into a singularly concentrated power to censor. The concern is reasonable, but the extreme example is not.
I'm all for that, but only if we abolish internet anonymity.
Freedom of speech is not predilected on being able to say them anonymously behind false identities such that it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to hold people to account for the things that they spout.
@@MoireFly Judges and police arent part of the government? What nutjob land are you from.
You do if the hatful speech comes from the other side.
Yes. But as you note in the video, it’s nothing new - the UK has taken this approach for a long time.
True, but that doesn't mean it's right. it was wrong in the past and it's wrong now.
Does the length something has been done, therefore, make it justified?
@user-bt5qt9pp4x Unless you're a muslim screaming hate in the street, then you're free to say anything.
Who decides what's hateful though?
This comment shows that you know nothing of jusrisprudence and legal precisents. This is precisely why you should trust others to define this - they can use their brain in a competent way.
@@diannelovesyou BOT
@@diannelovesyou”dude let’s just let authorities who don’t have our best interests in mind define what is okay to say because that’s never gone badly”
@@diannelovesyou This comment shows that you use no arguments
and your rhetoric is limited to calling someone "stupid" 🙃
Dictionary?
Thoughtcrime is the new normal.
Its not thoughtcrime though, you just made that up because you support the criminals.
@@SocialDownclimber And do you support the son of migrant that kill those 3 girls? Because if you don't you would understand why the riots happened.
@@SocialDownclimber Don't be daft.
@@SocialDownclimber 1986 looking better day by day
@@SocialDownclimberGo outside of a police station, insult either Mo or @!! ah, and assuming you're still around see what the cops do, and then talk about "no thoughtcrime."
The government has your interest in mind until it doesn't.
Incitement to commit immediate illegal acts and threats are not protected under the US 1st Amendment. (Supreme Court 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio).
Dumb argument. Many if not most of the people who are getting arrested are not making threats for violence.
@@Jmart786No they were setting buildings on fire and beating up people in the streets.
@@Jmart786 hows the weather in moscow?
@@Jmart786 Can you cite examples? I can only find 3 in recent times Jordan Parlour, for advocating an attack on a migrant hotel in Leeds, Tyler Kay of Northampton, also called for migrant hotels to be attacked and Lucy Connolly for tweeting "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it."
** Edit should have done a better search. 3 unnamed in Cumbria and Julie Sweeney, who admitted the offence.
@@rynonymouss I'm Spanish, from Tenerife and I live in London. You are absolutely paranoid.
Why go fight authoritarians when the authoritarians are right here at home?
You know the old saying: to find out who controls you, find out who you cannot make fun of.
Nazis. You cannot make fun of nazis in the UK.
Afghanistan's present is future of UK, France and Germany!!
The problem our Governments have become too dictatorial since Blair. London is now the 3rd highest for surveillance equipment in the world ,next to Taiyuan and Wuxi in China. No other Western city appears in the top ten. We have nowhere near the freedoms of the US when it comes to freedom of expression. When a man can get 20 months for shouting at a dog and using a word that offends someone, it a word not a brick, we are getting stupid. It takes a lot for the Brits to riot so maybe government should be doing more to address their concerns.
It wasn't "The Brits", it was a tiny number of fascist thugs, joined by a number of people of very low intelligence who are easily led. The shame of it is that it's mostly the easily led that are going to prison and not the hardcore fascists, who make sure they are very difficult to identify when it all kicks off.
Full of cameras, yet people get mugged and jumped by gangs on a daily basis. But hey, they say it’s for your own safety.
I’d never live in such authoritarian shitholes even if I was part of the sheltered elite making lots of money
Our country is a laughing stock, north Korea would be proud.
Whilst I find a lot of "social" commentary abhorrent, I would rather allow it than criminalize the speech itself.
Why? Can you articular the motivating argument for free speech, as applied to a situation such as this? I can't.
I think people are irrationally dogmatic in their reverence for free speech. It's not a panacea, nor is it impossible to distinguish classes of speech such that we need to apply just one standard regardless of circumstances. Nor is speech powerless and thus harmless. It's also not necessary to centralize any determinations of what's true or not; and not necessary to centralize determinations of what's harmful - i.e. we can hold speakers accountable without granting "the government" any control over speech - just as we frankly already have for centuries via libel & fraud laws.
Sure, there _are_ risks - so let's talk constructively about avoiding those, rather than worshipping free speech beyond all reason. Going further, we probably protect some kinds of speech too little, even today - SLAPP suits involving defamation are a problem. Why not re-evaluate which protections are appropriate, and which not?
@MoireFly The government is not infallible. Who are they to determine what is hate speech and what is not? We essentially have blasphemy laws now, when religions absolutely deserve criticism. The government messes with the darwinism of ideas, if people are free to speak we can have our speech questioned and understand when we are in error, or we can hear others speak and learn from their ideas. The government instead bars certain forms of speech deeming them harmful when they could be the ones causing harm. For example a Brit was arrested for saying Mormonism is a cult. Is that hate speech or a criticism?
@@MoireFly
I would rather people are free to speak their minds, no matter how abhorrent I might find their monologue/dialogue..
I would rather it be public, rather than behind encryption, or going back to using the mail service for "privacy", how better to gather intelligence than allowing people to say what they will.
Surely people openly voicing their opinion gives others the opportunity to attempt to educate, change perspective etc..
Communication is communication..
@@MoireFly Either you're allowed to say whatever you want that doesn't actively advocate real violence or you don't have free speech. If these laws existed in the 50s when gay people were being castrated and homosexuality was considered obscene where do you think we'd be? We wouldn't be a world leader in LGBTQ rights, we'd be socially the same as we were in the 50s and then only changed because people had the right to say what they thought.
The right to speak your mind is literally the single most important right on the planet
@@TheLinkoln18 Thank you for your cogent, thoughtful response.
However, I think you're overlooking or insufficiently emphasizing 2 important aspects:
(1) the reality zero human beings have the time, attention, and mental capacity to actually carefully consider all that we hear and read to the extent that all speech can contribute to the kind of open education that you mention. Therefore, we need to take mental shortcuts, and these shortcuts are obvious enough that they're easily exploitable by others. It's not an intellectual flaw that mere education can fix; its and intrinsic limitation due to our brains, and likely even simply physics (nothing can be infinitely smart). We're _not_ going to fix this; we need to learn to deal with it. In short: nobody is Sherlock Holmes.
and (2) that we don't need a perfect Oracle that can ban all falsehoods and permit all truths; we don't even need a law with zero downsides. We don't need the law to enforce perfection; the gap between the kind of constructive debate you're describing and incitement - even indirect, non-specific incitement - is vast. It's not a coincidence that people express lots of concern about this surely flawed law, yet nobody can actually find and example that stands up to any scrutiny of somebody being convicted or arrested for an opinion that's even vaguely necessary for constructive debate. And the current law isn't even any good; no debate on my side! Yet even so, it's just not the kind of Orwellian nightmare you fear. Having laws the encourage a little more thought and care by penalizing encouragement to be violent is a win with only very small downsides. Those downsides are a very reasonable price to pay and do not represent a meaningful chilling effect, _and_ we can surely do even better than the overly broad law of today.
One small correction: The relevant parts of the 2003 Communications Act were already in law via the 1984 Telecommunications Act. The 2003 act more or less just updated the 1984 law for the internet age. I'll leave it to you if you think its appropriate that this law was passed in 1984.
I think its fine. Lock up the gammons
This is why tactical voting has to stop
You lost, get over it.
@@Mogojoegotube tactical voting = jumping off one cliff to avoid falling off of another cliff
@@SirAntoniousBlock we all did. We're living in an authoritarian shithole.
Difference is, some of us can admit that
The UK is something else these days - this policy sounds like something the soviet union would have cooked up.
If they just said Allah u akbar while they did it. They would have been left alone
i am absolutely disgusted by this country at the moment
But you were fine with the last 14 years? 😂
@@SirAntoniousBlock who said that?
@@funny7 You did by omission, by specifically saying _at the moment._
If you were really absolutely disgusted by this country you would have mentioned the last 14 years.
@@SirAntoniousBlock you’ve had a bit too much internet today. Maybe go elsewhere and put words in someone else’s mouth.
@@funny7 You should worry more about your writing skills.
It's nothing new poeple have been arrested for tweets in UK over the past decade Kier is just going to double down on it
I am so glad im an American
Does this include MPs who insisted it
Like Jess Phillips and Raynor
@@Rampart.XAnd what exactly did they do?
*NO!!!* 😆😂😅🤣
I don't really care that people are getting sentenced for hate speech online when it's actually hate speech, but a lot of it isn't actually inciting any sort of violence from what I've seen, just reposts of videos of events that are occuring.
What is shocking to me is the speed of the sentencing. Sometimes, it's less than 2 days to pass a 3 year prison sentence, whereas people doing actual crime aren't getting sentenced for months.
What about the false information by the national press? Shouldn't they get the same treatment?
Of course they should - to the extent that we can come up with a law that works and is reasonable and considers the risks of chilling effects, and have sufficient proof to satisfy that law.
But yeah, we very much should be more willing to hold malicious or reckless media to account in cases such as this.
@@MoireFly We should, but you know very well that it doesn't happen. I'd hazard a guess you're happy with that, as they are part of the status quo that you align with.
@@calvinfatman7918 Lol. I have no idea where that ad hominem came from, and you're not even coherently making any case, just vaguely impugning my motives. Not exactly classy. Speak for yourself - you clearly have an opinion - and not for me.
@@MoireFly Re read what you put.
"Of course they should - to the extent that we can come up with a law that works and is reasonable and considers the risks of chilling effects, and have sufficient proof to satisfy that law."
Tiptoeing around, and presenting it as a special case.
Self awareness isn't your forte
@evie1915
National press?
When your government has the power to decide what is and isn’t offensive/hateful, you have already lost.
How dare people be arrested for making threats against people
@@joedowning2428 How dare white people be angry about their kids being barbarically kill by a son of migrants?
@joedowning2428 it's for being "grossly offensive", not making threats. Research this law
@@kierancaldwell3442 funnily enough, threatening violence against people based on where they're from/their skin colour is grossly offensive.
@joedowning2428 so are non-threatening memes and jokes. The things that people are actually being arrested for.
Arresting people for actual violence and threats, fine. Arresting people for anything deemed offensive, tyrannical.
Nice try though
Wait... Offending someone is illegal? That's insane
That’s right smelly pants..🤪 JK.
No. Inciting riots is against the law.
it is strange but I am finding it impossible to tell if this is sarcasm or honest
The only offences are those committed by the govt and its brown militia against working class natives.
@@henryburton6529posting memes is inciting riots now 😂 I swear people want to live in North Korea and it’s wild
Answer is yes, as the uk does not have freedom of speech.
The question is who gets to decide? The UK is lucky in not having experienced a dictatorship on their own turf, however as a German I see a billion ways how this legislature can and will be abused. Mind you we also have a conditional freedom of expression, however our laws are a lot clearer in what is and what isn't allowed. The UK's seems like it is intentionally ambiguous so that it can be wielded as a sword of suppression against political/ ideological enemies and keeps everyone on edge as, at least as it appears to me on the outside, people simply can't predict what could get them in trouble. Calling publicly for genocide against Israelis? Apparently no problem. Calling publicly against immigration? Apparently a problem. In Germany we had in the same last year pro-Hamas rallies being cracked down upon as well as far right idiots chanting "Germany for the Germans, foreigners out" feeling the same weight of the law.
And it appears at least to me that a lot of what is fueling the protests on the right the seemingly unequal treatment under that vague legislature, with police at times even retreating from minority riots rather than cracking down on them. So if people see the laws not being upheld by the state why shouldn't they do the same? If the law didn't apply to all the protests from publicly calling for genocide and terror to people opposing state authority taking abused children into protective care, why shouldn't they be able to do the same? If the laws were clear and upheld rigourously I doubt we would have seen the unhinged protests of the UK's right in the last couple of weeks. From their perspective everyone gets to do whatever they want and they are the only ones that face consequences for it. What e.g. happened to all the people spreading the fake information about Israel having bombed a hospital in Gaza in the beginning of the current war there? Did they receive the same treatment as the ones spreading the fake information about the attacker that murdered the three girls? Didn't that fake information also trigger riots and protests?
Sorry, you're off to jail for too much critical thinking and common sense
The uk has experienced dictatorship, but we call it a closed democracy with the same 2 parties winning for a century.
You think the UK hasn't experienced dictatorship on its own turf? FPTP effectively allows for one-party authoritarianism in rolling 5-year electoral periods. Any party that wins a majority in Parliament so long as they can stamp out any rebellion they can ram through anything they want into law and nobody can stop them. Look at the past 14 years of Tory government, especially after they didn't need the Lib Dems for coalition partners anymore after 2015.
I don‘t understand this hardline view that immigration is good for us and you cannot say otherwise. Why must we stick to this?
Even if it is good for us in some incalculable way, we are still a democracy, and if the majority say let‘s end mass migration that‘s what the politicians are supposed to do.
UK a democracy 😂😂😂
They have a royal family FFS
@@baha3alshamari152Yeah, they are a kingdom.
UK is cooked.
Not really. Not a single sentence so far has been undeserved. In fact the riots have been handled impressively well.
um not really, just cos king elon says something doesn't make it true
@@TheCommentor- Which case? Name the suspect and charges
@@NoRezos Wayne o’rouke was arrested for misinformation about the murder of the three girls, is spreading misinformation bad? Yes, but bad enough to warrant getting arrested for accidentally lying to a large audience is a bit authoritarian
@@aleccino All mention on this video are undesved and are attacking people that just want to be safe and their kids to be safe in their own country. Also this anti-free speech laws YOU KNOW are racial laws that will only be enforce against white people on 98% of cases.
Freedom of speech must be codified into the UK constitution. Without freedom of speech goverments are free to determine what is 'false' or 'hateful' and that is a dangerous precedent.
Uk doesn't have a constitution.
Getting jailed for memes?
Seriously?
If your meme calls for violence and the murder of people in a hotel then yes! Off to jail you go!
Where were you people when people were getting jail sentences in Spain for editing their faces on top of a Christ figure? Now that it actually serves to prevent hate speech you raise your voices?
@@shuggiemcg1 who decide if is does that ?
@@dariusalexandru9536court! Right??
Prosecutor George Shelley said Dunn had posted an image showing a group of men, Asian in appearance, at Egremont crab fair 2025, with the caption: “Coming to a town near you.”
Dunn stated nothing more than the government policy to disperse immigrants. The fact they interpreted this to be racist just shows their double standards and content for the working class.
Dunn was promptly thrown in jail...
A society more forcefully using hate speech laws is sadly a society in decline and that is unsure of its own political foundations. Surely, this must be seen as a inception of a move towards more tyranny, however well intended (which it almost always seem to be)
Worst idea ever
I think since hate can be used so broadly, having something like, "speech that provably brings physical harm unto someone should be punished." so if you call for a riot and nothing happens you're fine, if your comments provably had some contribution to the riots which then lead to physical harm, you hold some of the accountability.
In the USA which has Free Speech baked in - you can still be prosecuted for exactly these kinds of tweets
"advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action"
In USA police will not come to you for posting meme or a video of riots.
that holds true for most if not all western countries, doesn't stop populists from bending over backwards to make a big rights violation out of nothing.
You can say literally anything on the internet in the USA... that doesn't mean they won't be used against you IF you commit a crime
@@Gajus_Julius Misinformation.
That's a completely reasonable limitation to free speech. In the UK we are seeing fascist socialist for the first time in a generation and we are waking up to the fact it's a big problem
Now do one on two-tier policing, would be very interesting to see what your research suggests!
Comment section is very scary. I hope you all get extra social points from Starmer
The boot licking is alarming.
There are times that US Free Speech annoys me, but those annoyances seem petty compared to police action for "offending" someone. It seems too subjective to be uniformly enforced and seems to cater to snowflakes.
The UK has ALWAYS had problems coping with freedom of speech, which is in part why we have the United States.
There's the sense that the Govt is in charge of people, rather than being OF and FOR the people. Its a difficult one to solve
Oh please, USA Govt is in charge for the companies
The US has freedom to bare arms too but that backfired enormously
@@Fab666. I'm not sure I understand the point. Nor how they relate to each other.
The right to bear arms was a provision to set up militias to protect against....the British 🙂
@@NoRezos At least they don't have North Korea level censorship and anti-Free speech laws.
This was a genuinely well-reasoned and expressed chain of thought on a tricky topic. Well done!
The problem arises when people are being changed for the hate bit. I do not believe it is any governments right to regulate hate. There is a clear difference when it comes to incitement but that is a very specific thing. I am gay and personally, though I have no desire to be around homophobic people, I wouldn't dream of requiring them to be arrested so long as 1. there is an understanding that a basic level of equality that shall not be altered is established for all classes of citizens (within reason) and 2.there is no attempt or desire to cause ACTUAL harm, meaning either physical damage, destruction of property or concerted and targeted harassment. The idea that someone should be arrested because it offended someone is horrifying to me.
Wdym, can’t the government control what the citizens feel? You nailed it, it’s just an authoritarian measure aggravating whatever problem it’s trying to tackle.
Big brother is watching!
The word Freedom is the most abused word in the English language. So we have 'Freedom From' and 'Freedom To' which means the word Freedom must be qualified in the context in which it is being used. However, who is the arbiter of this raises further questions. Even codifying the word in Law raises the issue of control by the state over the individual.
Probably because people are being too literal. Nothing in the law is to be taken at face value. Everything in the law has nuance, 'freedom' for anything was never 'freedom with no strings attached'. Also, you live in a country with laws, there is already substantial control over all individuals.
English is the only language that distinguishes between freedom and liberty. The word "freedom" is massively inflated, as the aristocrats want us to believe we have freedom when they simply give us slightly longer chains and slightly bigger cages.
Only Americans use it all the time ironically, but the Uk is surely following this path
There is misinterpretation of the word 'freedom'. Yes, you are a free person, as you and everyone else should be. But you are not free from consequences. Are you free to lock someone else in your/their room as a punishment? No, you are reducing their freedom.
The best interpretation of 'freedom' is that your freedom ends, where someone's else freedom begins. Usually, for decent folks - don't perform acts you wouldn't be happy about yourself.
Freedom is best understood as "Freedom from coercion."
I live that the prosecutors response to accusations of overreach and overly aggressive prosecution is "well, we've done it before."
Is that a question even worth asking? People have eyes.
Re the Chambers tweet: one of my favourite social media adages is Poe’s Law, where a message is liable to be taken seriously if there is no evidence of light-heartedness in the message. I.e. if Chambers had added an emoji denoting a joke, he would not be taken seriously.
Yeah inciting violence when a riots going on is fair game for prosecution
So should pedos, but police don't seem too bothered.
100%
Someone got arrested for calling a police horse "Gay". Does that count?
@@FuzzyRiy that would be dependent on the situation wouldn't it! if you simply said in a quiet voice that horse is gay! Did you mean gay as in happy or a homophobic slur? But if you're in the middle of a riot and screaming swearing and goading officers and screaming "You're horse is Gay!" it's likely to be deemed to be homophobic slurs against an officer! Doesn't matter its an animal its still illegal! Remember police animals are treated as officers! Im not saying its right or wrong thats just how the law is! Don't be a tool and be at a riot!
@@FuzzyRiy You can be arrested for drawing an octopus with 13 tentacles. Doesn't mean you'll get fined or convicted. The gay horse guy (almost 20 years ago now!) did _not_ pay any fine, and the case was dropped. The problem here wasn't just the law, it was the police officer - and that's a different problem, though perhaps we should respect that there will always be a grey area, and thus cannot demand perfection from police. They made the wrong call - but the consequences were limited and lessons learnt. Then, years later, the law in question was amended too. Sounds like the system worked!
Has any action been taken on the misleading, inciteful comments made by hope not hate?
Once again, another reason the US was right to declare independence all those years ago
the context of the claims have absolutely nothing to do with whether people will face legal consequences for their words because the law makes clear that context doesnt make a difference because if hurt could have even hypothetically been caused by the words, then it is a criminal case. So really the only way you can avoid facing legal consequences online is to either avoid certain buzz words the algorithms will pick up, or try to use internet platforms where you can be as anonymous as possible
The irony of UK government doing the exact same thing that china and saudi Arabia does with it's people lol
Lol. Yeah, sure, we draw the line in other places, dufus.
Nope
Lol, in which parallel universe?
It’s not though is it
Ah yes, arresting people that were spreading lies and hate speech is the same as calling Xi Jinping, Winnie the Pooh and disappearing (probably dead) or Woman rightfully protesting the want for equality and rights for woman, and then being wrongly arrested.
Stfu with your poorly thought out drivel.
“The right of others not to be subjected to hate speech”
It’s the start of wider scale censorship when you hear something like that.
If people are making bomb threats or threatening violence online I feel like that might be an exception. Criticising the government or a group of people even when using foul or racist languange should be protected by free speech. But a post on the internet saying you are going to blow up a hospital should be taken seriously
Exactly. I wonder what these free speech advocates crying foul now would say about how even mentioning the word "bomb" or anything "explosive" like a "grenade" in an airport or on a flight would land someone in serious antiterrorism trouble. It's been this way since 9/11, yet nobody's come out and said "hey it's violating free speech".
The first comment you mentioned could get you arrested in the US too. That comment could be mistaken for an actual threat. There are certain things you just don't joke about. So that one shouldn't be controversial at all.