So explain why the very idea of freedom of speech imposes and recognises limits? Or do we just ignore that and come up with our own definition completely void of what the actual idea is?
How does the idea of free speech impose limits on speech? The idea of freedom of speech is that there will be no legal repercussions to do with what you say (assuming what you say isn't tantamount to fraud libel or slander). If you have free speech it is entirely free and does not contain restrictions based upon speech that is found distasteful.
I presume it's still ok to express that you dislike people (and organisations) for reasons other than their race, gender or sexuality?
Like if I say that all tesco staff are ****ing useless ***** and should be fired, that's worth a few "likes" and not much else. Or would I get arrested for that as well? I dunno man, there have been quite a few "no name-calling!" arrests recently, is there any very clear guidance on what we are and are not allowed to say at the moment?
Shouldn't there be a published list of forbidden words or something? How else can anyone know for sure what they can still say? If it's simply down to whether or not some poor darling "gets offended" then, hell, I'll have most of TSR arrested right now.
It seems to me as though everyone on here is getting themselves mixed up about the difference between incitement to hatred and being offensive. It's out of order to deliberately offend someone but it's not illegal. He was charged with incitement to racial hatred which is not the same thing. I haven't seen what he wrote but the fact that he has pleaded guilty means that something he said must have involved encouraging others to commit illegal acts.
Just calling somebody rude names is not illegal. Getting someone else to do something criminal is.
It seems to me as though everyone on here is getting themselves mixed up about the difference between incitement to hatred and being offensive. It's out of order to deliberately offend someone but it's not illegal. He was charged with incitement to racial hatred which is not the same thing. I haven't seen what he wrote but the fact that he has pleaded guilty means that something he said must have involved encouraging others to commit illegal acts.
Not in this case it doesn't, there are limitations which he has crossed which is why he's been charged and probably why he has plead guilty
I agree there are limits to what is said. Calling 'fire' in a crowded room without believing in a fire or defrauding others are not covered by freedom of speech. However, you draw the line miles away from these activities. Offending people should be allowed. Otherwise what is the point of free speech?
Funny how the very idea of freedom of speech states limits, but that every 'omg our country is so crap' idiotic child on this forum just ignores it completely.
"According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights."
But, alas, everyone ignores this because 'omg we cant say what we want anymore'
Are you a complete idiot? There is no official definition of freedom of speech. It is up to us as individuals to find out what free speech entails.
Our legal system incorporates some very vague concepts from ECHR. But SO WHAT? Why does it matter what some organisation says or what some government says? Why do they have unilateral control over phrases of our language?
Stop appealing to the status quo to justify the status quo.
It seems to me as though everyone on here is getting themselves mixed up about the difference between incitement to hatred and being offensive. It's out of order to deliberately offend someone but it's not illegal. He was charged with incitement to racial hatred which is not the same thing. I haven't seen what he wrote but the fact that he has pleaded guilty means that something he said must have involved encouraging others to commit illegal acts.
Just calling somebody rude names is not illegal. Getting someone else to do something criminal is.
This is not necessarily true. Look up s5 of Public Order Act.
Worrying trend. twitter is private, and none of the police's business person has no history of racism, clearly he was just being abit of a troll . shouldnt be a crime
I agree there are limits to what is said. Calling 'fire' in a crowded room without believing in a fire or defrauding others are not covered by freedom of speech. However, you draw the line miles away from these activities. Offending people should be allowed. Otherwise what is the point of free speech?
You think people have fought for years for freedom of speech so people can offend people on twitter?
Freedom of speech is important but the right shouldn't be abused so idiots on the internet can justify abusing seriously ill footballers
You think people have fought for years for freedom of speech so people can offend people on twitter?
Freedom of speech is important but the right shouldn't be abused so idiots on the internet can justify abusing seriously ill footballers
Christ, you really don't get it, do you? People who fought for freedom of speech didn't fight for anything that anyone is saying. They fought for their RIGHT to say it whether they thought it important,pointless,racist or stupid. Freedom of speech entails not banning something simply because you disagree with the content of that speech.
Perhaps I agree with you that people shouldn't insult ill footballers. But whether I do or not I still respect their right to say it without being arrested.
I agree there are limits to what is said. Calling 'fire' in a crowded room without believing in a fire or defrauding others are not covered by freedom of speech. However, you draw the line miles away from these activities. Offending people should be allowed. Otherwise what is the point of free speech?
Inconveniencing others is covered by freedom of speech, the last time I checked telling a lie wasn't illegal (unless you're committing perjury for all the smart @rses out there)
We have lost the freedom of speech in so-called "democracy". Someone can't say "LOL MUAMBA'S DEAD" without being arrested and charged with a "racially-aggravated public order offence to incite violence". I've read the tweets. Couldn't find anyone inciting anyone to violence.
Someone criticising the widespread media bias more sympathetic towards armed soldiers over the Afghan civilians whose land they are occupying gets arrested and charged. What has happened to our freedoms?
Inconveniencing others is covered by freedom of speech, the last time I checked telling a lie wasn't illegal (unless you're committing perjury for all the smart @rses out there)
Not merely inconveniencing others but putting others in a real risk of harm by your direct actions.
Don't people have a right to live their life without someone insulting them?
You don't have the right to walk around on the metaphorical red carpet and have the government silence everyone on your behalf. This is called tyranny.