Does Britain need a First Amendment?

It does feel like free speech is being eroded in Britain - whether through the criminal justice system, public bodies such as universities, etc. Perhaps that is a good thing and it means we are taking harmful language more seriously? People's views will differ.

Do you think Britain should enshrine in law something akin to the First Amendment - which would also bind public bodies to abide by its principles?

I am not sure. While it would feel more "free" to be protected under a First Amendment, I am not sure whether I would want people to be able to say pretty much what they wanted in public, unchecked.

Views?

Reply 1

Sabertooth

Original post by Mathemagicien

Free speech leads to Nazi rallies in USA. It led to Nazi rallies in Germany, and ultimately to the holocaust and then the second world war.

Free speech is hate speech. We cannot call ourselves a tolerant society if we continue to protect hate.

I never can tell when you're taking the piss. :beard:

Reply 2

3121

No, quite the opposite. For example Papers like the daily mail should be gagged for the lies and poison they spread through society.

I love how people complain about free speech dying yet we live in the day and age of information. We live in the day and age of fake news in every direction, even fake news is fake news!! We’re fed bull***t on a daily basis, we let it poison our society for the sake of letting people say whatever nonsense they please no matter how much it may be misleading others along the way. It seems we place free speech above the importance of education and facts, when it was intended to do exactly that - spread facts and education. Today’s Free speech is not based on the principals free speech was intended for and something needs to be done about that.

Reply 3

username2080673

I'm not quite sure the argument of us not having free speech - or otherwise lesser free speech - yields any merit. We have a sufficient amount of free speech to express political views comfortably; which is what the vast majority of the populous care about. The status quo, as far as I'm aware, is completely fine.

Reply 4

That Bearded Man

Brits have more common sense than in the US though, I doubt safe spaces will catch on so much here, plus the first amendment still wouldn't distinguish, say, no platforming

Reply 5

Iridocyclitis

Original post by Zxyn

But shouldn't the onus be on the individual to find the unadulterated truth? If the Mail put out an article sensationalising immigration figures and the Guardian put out an article minimising them, isn't the onus on the individual to go to a government statistics website and find out what the true, raw figures are and come to their own conclusion based on that evidence?

And do you mean news and information which is wholly made up or news and information which has a sensationalised or exaggerated spin on it? I tend to agree that the former should not be allowed.

Reply 6

3121

Original post by Iridocyclitis

Yes but it’s immoral for a business to use its power to spread false information and to manipulate information for their own gains. In a true democracy we’d have papers publishing these numbers without a twist and they wouldn’t be manipulating data and information to increase political influence - it’s deceiving. We both know people in this country aren’t the smartest hence why so many are sucked into such lies, sadly people don’t bother to fact check but they shouldn’t be fed twisted or false information to begin with - and that’s something the government can intervene in, they can’t force people to fact check and if they could it’s a little dumb they support businesses lying to the public then spend millions to attempt getting people to fact check..

I toatally agree that wholly made up news and info should not be allowed at all, but I think there’s also a valid debate on whether and how far this should extend to manipulated news and info. If I wanted to I could take true information, leave other parts out and sell a completely different story to what actually happened - using nothing but facts and manipulation.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 7

RF_PineMarten

Original post by Zxyn

No, quite the opposite. For example Papers like the daily mail should be gagged for the lies and poison they spread through society.

Lies and slander is already covered under existing law (perhaps some adjustments could be made to it), but no media outlet should be gagged for promoting views some people think are "poison". Government censorship of the press like that must never be allowed or encouraged.

Reply 8

Retired_Messiah

The way things are at the moment is OK. At the present time I don't really know what some kind of first amendment would actually change. It'd just sorta be there...

Reply 9

generallee

We don't have a written Constitution so can't make any amendments to it.

Nor is free speech properly protected by it in the US. All the safe space snowflake bullsh it originated in the US and they are even worse at closing down debate on PC grounds at campuses than we are.

The legal framework here is fine by me, the biggest problem is self censorship, especially over Islam. We ought to be able to ridicule Mohammed just as we do Jesus. But that isn't possible, in fact post Charlie Hebdo it is inconceivable. The ability to speak freely, but the prevention from dong so out of fear of being murdered isn't really free speech. But I don't see how legislation helps with that.

Reply 10

username1799249

Original post by Iridocyclitis

But shouldn't the onus be on the individual to find the unadulterated truth?

What does that even mean? Anyone who tells me they want to tell me "the truth" is an instant turn off. Chances are they are trying to tell me their version of "the truth".

From a news point of view, there are still organisations out there that value journalism and only publish articles that have been fact checked. But I don't think they would claim for a second to publish the unadulterated truth. Any story has many views.

Life is like the elephant and the blind men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Reply 11

Yoyo9

Original post by Iridocyclitis

The Left has free speech, so why shouldn't everyone else?

Reply 12

Underscore__

No no we need a complete ban on hate facts and opinions which might possibly cause offence to even one person (unless that person is a white male because they're the scum of the Earth)