Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1100 – Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill 2017 Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Read the ECHR, article 10: "all shall have the right to freedom of expression and information" as this is an absolutist, universal right that is part of UK law as per the HRA 1998, then you cannot impose limits on the press.

    As for hate speech, that's a poor example that is more applicable in America, the only type of speech that is hate speech is inciting violence, if aggression is not being called for, then it should be allowed. This applies to the press as well.

    I think you should look up the word "freedom" - it's not a relativist term. If you want to limit one human right then by extension we can be relative about all of them; torture is ok in some circumstances if a regulated press is.
    Conflating agreeing to torture with saying people should mark if news is satire or deliberately false, that is quite some leap of logic you've made there.

    Hate speech is extremely relevant here, and it is frankly preposterous to suggest otherwise when you see even elected officials even in the past couple years making racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic remarks. Nobody/group should be allowed to break hate speech laws.

    Freedom means different things when discussing areas. Should the press have to say if something is false, or satire and be bound by hate speech laws? Absolutely. Should they have the freedom to report what they wish, and take opinion stances they wish to? Completely 100%. The press should be regulated so they don't tell lies, and if they do there are consequences to telling the lies. There is a reason why sites such as the Onion have to state they are satire. I am not discussing going any further than that really.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Conflating agreeing to torture with saying people should mark if news is satire or deliberately false, that is quite some leap of logic you've made there.

    Hate speech is extremely relevant here, and it is frankly preposterous to suggest otherwise when you see even elected officials even in the past couple years making racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic remarks. Nobody/group should be allowed to break hate speech laws.

    Freedom means different things when discussing areas. Should the press have to say if something is false, or satire and be bound by hate speech laws? Absolutely. Should they have the freedom to report what they wish, and take opinion stances they wish to? Completely 100%. The press should be regulated so they don't tell lies, and if they do there are consequences to telling the lies. There is a reason why sites such as the Onion have to state they are satire. I am not discussing going any further than that really.
    No, it isn't, if you mark out one human right as not absolute, what's to stop another party coming to power and ignoring the right to be free from torture using the same reasoning, perhaps I should've made my point more clear there, it's a slippery slope.

    Again, I'll repeat, all of those leftist buzzwords you trotted out there are not hate speech (unless they are qualified with the incitement of violence), that's not to say they aren't reprehensible and idiotic, but they shouldn't be taboo and certainly shouldn't be illegal. You are making up hate speech laws that don't exist, because, to repeat again: the ECHR doesn't allow for hate speech laws as a criminal offence because of article 10, and all UK law is compatible with the ECHR because of Blair's Human Rights Act.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Conflating agreeing to torture with saying people should mark if news is satire or deliberately false, that is quite some leap of logic you've made there.

    Hate speech is extremely relevant here, and it is frankly preposterous to suggest otherwise when you see even elected officials even in the past couple years making racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic remarks. Nobody/group should be allowed to break hate speech laws.

    Freedom means different things when discussing areas. Should the press have to say if something is false, or satire and be bound by hate speech laws? Absolutely. Should they have the freedom to report what they wish, and take opinion stances they wish to? Completely 100%. The press should be regulated so they don't tell lies, and if they do there are consequences to telling the lies. There is a reason why sites such as the Onion have to state they are satire. I am not discussing going any further than that really.
    Apparently the organ donation policy in Wales reminds Connor27 of '1984' so I wouldn't worry too much about him throwing around words like 'torture' in a debate about libel law.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Apparently the organ donation policy in Wales reminds Connor27 of '1984' so I wouldn't worry too much about him throwing around words like 'torture' in a debate about libel law.
    I would redirect you to the first paragraph of my last post, as much as I know you'll attempt to dismiss it as hyperbole, it is highly relevant as this is in relation to an article of the ECHR.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I would redirect you to the first paragraph of my last post, as much as I know you'll attempt to dismiss it as hyperbole, it is highly relevant as this is in relation to an article of the ECHR.
    I have not read the explanation of how Section 40 infringes anyone's human rights. If anything it looks like it's helping defend them. I don't know much about the issue so I'm happy for someone more informed to correct me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I have not read the explanation of how Section 40 infringes anyone's human rights. If anything it looks like it's helping defend them. I don't know much about the issue so I'm happy for someone more informed to correct me.
    Article 10 of the ECHR: "everyone has the freedom of expression and information" - regulation of the press, I would argue, limits the freedom of information, with the implication there being that the article isn't absolute, which means that all articles are relative by extension, ergo, future government officially legalising torture on the precedent set here that the ECHR isn't completely absolutist.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Article 10 of the ECHR: "everyone has the freedom of expression and information" - regulation of the press, I would argue, limits the freedom of information, with the implication there being that the article isn't absolute, which means that all articles are relative by extension, ergo, future government officially legalising torture on the precedent set here that the ECHR isn't completely absolutist.
    It's easy to say 'freedom of the press = good' but none of your post specifically explains to me how Section 40 infringes anyone's human rights. :/ I do not understand the interpretation of the legislation being repealed that limits expression or information. You'll have to explain it in more specific terms than 'regulation of the press' which is very broad.

    You presumably agree with libel and privacy laws? The press should not be able to tap our phones (any more the government should be able to - aye?) or spread lies about us to fulfill some agenda?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    No, it isn't, if you mark out one human right as not absolute, what's to stop another party coming to power and ignoring the right to be free from torture using the same reasoning, perhaps I should've made my point more clear there, it's a slippery slope.

    Again, I'll repeat, all of those leftist buzzwords you trotted out there are not hate speech (unless they are qualified with the incitement of violence), that's not to say they aren't reprehensible and idiotic, but they shouldn't be taboo and certainly shouldn't be illegal. You are making up hate speech laws that don't exist, because, to repeat again: the ECHR doesn't allow for hate speech laws as a criminal offence because of article 10, and all UK law is compatible with the ECHR because of Blair's Human Rights Act.
    They're not buzzwords, they are real things which have a real, negative, impact on people. And even if it doesn't incite violence (although it is arguable that it does) many of the various different types of hateful speech often spread misinformation and lies about the minority groups/women, which are grounds for libel, and I would argue break the Equality Act 2010. I haven't once mentioned criminal law I don't believe, and it may not be criminal law it breaks, like right now with the Home Secretary over one of her speeches at Conservative conference.

    It is hardly a slippery slope to say I want to see some reform of current regulations, something which is actually quite a hot topic in America at the moment due to the Presidential Election. You aren't even making a mountain out of a molehill, you're creating a molehill in order to make a mountain out of it.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Apparently the organ donation policy in Wales reminds Connor27 of '1984' so I wouldn't worry too much about him throwing around words like 'torture' in a debate about libel law.
    I saw that yeah
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It's easy to say 'freedom of the press = good' but none of your post specifically explains to me how Section 40 infringes anyone's human rights. :/ I do not understand the interpretation of the legislation being repealed that limits expression or information. You'll have to explain it in more specific terms than 'regulation of the press' which is very broad.

    You presumably agree with libel and privacy laws? The press should not be able to tap our phones (any more the government should be able to - aye?) or spread lies about us to fulfill some agenda?
    It's a difficult one, that I usually justify using the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" cliché, I oppose phone tapping on moral grounds but wouldn't punish the press for it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    They're not buzzwords, they are real things which have a real, negative, impact on people. And even if it doesn't incite violence (although it is arguable that it does) many of the various different types of hateful speech often spread misinformation and lies about the minority groups/women, which are grounds for libel, and I would argue break the Equality Act 2010. I haven't once mentioned criminal law I don't believe, and it may not be criminal law it breaks, like right now with the Home Secretary over one of her speeches at Conservative conference.

    It is hardly a slippery slope to say I want to see some reform of current regulations, something which is actually quite a hot topic in America at the moment due to the Presidential Election. You aren't even making a mountain out of a molehill, you're creating a molehill in order to make a mountain out of it.



    I saw that yeah
    Oh boo hoo, people don't like getting their feelings hurt, poor special snowflakes, I'm sure they'd rather be eating dog in North Korea where no one says anything offensive!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Oh boo hoo, people don't like getting their feelings hurt, poor special snowflakes, I'm sure they'd rather be eating dog in North Korea where no one says anything offensive!
    And there we go, special snowflakes and hurt feelings, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to say that. And I don't even know how to reply to the North Korea comment, which is a sexist, authoritarian, homophobic, transphobic, no doubt racist and xenophobic hellhole where the groups I mention would be even less welcome. Arguing that society should be a tolerate place which doesn't discriminate against and lie about minorities and women is apparently a bad thing, and comparable to North Korea.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It's a difficult one, that I usually justify using the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" cliché, I oppose phone tapping on moral grounds but wouldn't punish the press for it.
    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?? Woah mate, 1984 wasn't meant to be an instruction manual!

    But seriously, as I already said, how is Section 40 breaking the ECHR? It looks like this is defending the individual and if I'm wrong about that I'd like to know.

    (Original post by Connor27)
    Oh boo hoo, people don't like getting their feelings hurt, poor special snowflakes, I'm sure they'd rather be eating dog in North Korea where no one says anything offensive!
    You don't care about people's feelings but you do care about people who can't be bothered to register their disapproval not getting a say in what happens to their arse skin after they die?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    And there we go, special snowflakes and hurt feelings, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to say that. And I don't even know how to reply to the North Korea comment, which is a sexist, authoritarian, homophobic, transphobic, no doubt racist and xenophobic hellhole where the groups I mention would be even less welcome. Arguing that society should be a tolerate place which doesn't discriminate against and lie about minorities and women is apparently a bad thing, and comparable to North Korea.
    I'm gonna stop now, you're a typical leftist that can't comprehend text; I DIDN'T COMPARE THEM.

    There's a difference between advocating for equal opportunities for all (which I want) regardless of anything (race; gender; sexual orientation etc etc) where the best are encouraged to succeed without regressive quotas and affirmative action.

    And then there's what people like you want: a paternalistic, equality of outcome culture where 20% of students get uni places because they're black, and a white, straight male ends up losing out on a place to a black, lesbian female despite having better grades for example.

    People like you are the real racists, you treat minorities like vulnerable pets as opposed to people, you assume they all need help, just because they are a minority.

    Look at the Jews (an ethnic group that I proudly say I have heritage from), the most oppressed minority group of all in my opinion, yet the most successful; with many CEOs, investment bankers, lawyers and doctors coming from Jewish backgrounds, did they need a condescending, paternalistic nanny state to get them there?

    The Labour Party and the Democrats in the USA have done the most damage by far to ethnic minority communities.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    When you guys are done going way of topic I'd love it if my (relevant) point could also get the same level of attention.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?? Woah mate, 1984 wasn't meant to be an instruction manual!

    But seriously, as I already said, how is Section 40 breaking the ECHR? It looks like this is defending the individual and if I'm wrong about that I'd like to know.



    You don't care about people's feelings but you do care about people who can't be bothered to register their disapproval not getting a say in what happens to their arse skin after they die?
    I suppose it's down to judicial interpretation; there are a few cases that come to mind where libel has been misused by people with money and influence, particularly when private eye try and expose them.

    The biggest one that comes to mind is the so-called "McLibel" case, where the ECtHR ruled in favour of Morris and Steel.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Excuse my less than full understanding of libel law however doesn't the offending section just mean that if a media organisation lose a libel or privacy infringement case then they pay the legal costs? Doesn't sound like so massive an attack on 'freedom of the press' as you're making out. I would have thought that freedom of the individual to protect themselves from libel and privacy invasion without bankrupting themselves was something you'd support more strongly.
    If they aren't party to one of the regulators it doesn't matter whether they lose or not, they pay either way. Currently the only recognised regulator is ImPress, which unsurprisingly nobody wants to be a part of, the group pretty much every media outlet in the country is affiliated with has stated it will not seek recognition, I would presume in protests

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a Lit student and I couldn't understand that for toffee. I get the feeling from this thread that this is some political statement (support for freer press etc.) - but as I can't separate fact from opinion here I shall simply abstain
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I suppose it's down to judicial interpretation; there are a few cases that come to mind where libel has been misused by people with money and influence, particularly when private eye try and expose them.

    The biggest one that comes to mind is the so-called "McLibel" case, where the ECtHR ruled in favour of Morris and Steel.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
    What's the relevance of this example to the bill at hand? We're talking about press freedom here right? Rather than the freedom of any big 'ol company to accuse others of libel. The assumption I currently hold - and the one that will need to be dispersed for me to vote for this bill - is that Section 40 doesn't suppress the freedom of the press (and by rather tenuous extension the ECHR) in any meaningful way. But I recognize that might be a case of me misunderstanding the relevant laws as my knowledge here only comes from a few online articles.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    What's the relevance of this example to the bill at hand? We're talking about press freedom here right? Rather than the freedom of any big 'ol company to accuse others of libel. The assumption I currently hold - and the one that will need to be dispersed for me to vote for this bill - is that Section 40 doesn't suppress the freedom of the press (and by rather tenuous extension the ECHR) in any meaningful way. But I recognize that might be a case of me misunderstanding the relevant laws as my knowledge here only comes from a few online articles.
    It doesn't directly do it, it indirectly does it by either having them to sign up to a regulator (that doesn't want a free press), or they have to be cautious to avoid chances of cases, which is not good for investigative journalism, since they would pay all legal fees and in theory it could be used as a vehicle to directly attack the publications by running up a bill unnecessarily.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It doesn't directly do it, it indirectly does it by either having them to sign up to a regulator (that doesn't want a free press), or they have to be cautious to avoid chances of cases, which is not good for investigative journalism, since they would pay all legal fees and in theory it could be used as a vehicle to directly attack the publications by running up a bill unnecessarily.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hmmm. I don't really have a problem with newspapers and stuff having to partake in the regulatory system. And whilst there might be cause for caution I also don't think you should have to pay the huge cost of fighting a major newspaper to defend your name if you've been wrongly purveyed as a pedophile or something in a sensationalist news story that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps it's would be better to introduce some kind of amendment rather than an outright repeal. :hat: I expect there's a good middle ground here which, if it weren't almost 2am, I might be able to come up with.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 20, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.