[pr0view]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
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'

What has he said that conflicts with someone's rights? Nothing he was offensive, you want someone locked up for been offensive?

I want you locked up conflicting with one of my "values" freedom of speech.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by limetang)
How is it a sad view to think that if you put restrictions on speech then you automatically stop having free speech.

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?

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Of course it exists legally otherwise assault, harrassment etc wouldnt be real..... .....

IF you had no right not to be offended than public harassment laws would not exist. Laws with regards to people running around shouting racial abuse would not exist. These and other laws are all ways to limit what a person can say to another in order to protect that person.

You're talking as if harrassment and offense are the same thing. They're totally different. You can be offended by a joke about a disabled person, without being harassed by it. (I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive, btw, merely that being offended is in no way the same thing as being harassed.)

Yes, yes it does.
If someone is likely to be offended by what you are saying, then it is illegal. If you have reasonable reason to think no1 can hear or no1 will be offended then it is not illegal. You are ignoring the very basics of the public order act.

"The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.". If a person is within sight, but it is not reasonable to suggest he was likely to be distressed by those words, than it is not an offense.

You're using definitions from different parts of the act. The bit you cite refers directly to harassment (ie Section 5), and it means that if you say "God, I want to kill Jane for what she did!" to a friend, it's not harassment. If you say "I want to kill Jane!" to Jane, it IS, because if she can't hear it, she isn't being harassed.

Which is wholly different to Section 3A, which is the one that deals with inciting racial hatred, and has no such defence.

[limetang]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
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.

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by NB_ide)
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.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
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.

Even if it hurts their feelings?

Getting someone else to do something criminal is.

yes

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by Dr. Von Nostrand)
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?

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
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.

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
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.

[James10000]

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

[Dr. Von Nostrand]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
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

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by Dr. Von Nostrand)
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.

[chefdave]

Don't the police deal with real crimes anymore?

Why on God's green earth are they locking people up for writing stuff on twitter?

[chefdave]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
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)

[Ice Constricter]

I'm glad.

[viffer]

Freedom of speech is all very well.

The really clever part is knowing when to use it

[Pindar]

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?

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by chefdave)
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.

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by Ice Constricter)
I'm glad.

You're glad that someone has been arrested for merely saying something that our government disagrees with?

[OU Student]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
Offending people should be allowed. Otherwise what is the point of free speech?

Don't people have a right to live their life without someone insulting them?