Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
The court ruled that the police action against him was excessive. The courts have protected the public from excessive police action against people's opinions. It's time to end police investigations of people being mean to each other in Twitter. It's a complete waste of everyone's time.
And resources.
How did the Police find the resources to go to somebodies workplace due to a "non-crime" but they lack the resources to investigate burglaries?
It's one of the few beliefs that unites more or less all parts of the Right spectrum, social conservative to libertarian: that the police should be thief takers, not glorified social workers.
The Court sided with the defendant. He had no loss of Freedom of Speech.
Or do you really mean that you want "Consequence-free Freedom of Speech"? Any utterance is acceptable.
If simply expressing certain opinions carries a possibility of being visited at work by the police then freedom of speech is at the very least compromised. Happily, this judgement should deter police forces from wasting time and resources like this in future.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
Do away with all such laws may be too far, but this guy had to go through a very long process and a court judgement to not be in fear of potential police harassment for lawful activity. They should have backed down long ago or better yet not soughg to infringe his liberty unreasonably in the first place.
I would not disagree with that, but the case was dismissed. The defendent is innocent. No change has been made to Freedom of Speech laws.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
That’s a very low bar you’re setting, Beibheirli.
No. We have always had Freedom of Speech. This just proves it. The Police made a mistake and the Courts found in favour of the defendant.
Lack of Freedom-of-Speech is more like North Korea where if you say the "wrong thing" they wheel out the aircraft guns and aim them at you.
Err, yes so that's why it's a good day for freedom of speech. It won in court over the idiotic thought police.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Was it not rather an indication that the existing law protects freedom of expression, and that it is the police who need education on what the law actually is (not for the first time).
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
The court ruled that the police action against him was excessive. The courts have protected the public from excessive police action against people's opinions. It's time to end police investigations of people being mean to each other in Twitter. It's a complete waste of everyone's time.
And resources.
How did the Police find the resources to go to somebodies workplace due to a "non-crime" but they lack the resources to investigate burglaries?
It's one of the few beliefs that unites more or less all parts of the Right spectrum, social conservative to libertarian: that the police should be thief takers, not glorified social workers.
The Court sided with the defendant. He had no loss of Freedom of Speech.
Or do you really mean that you want "Consequence-free Freedom of Speech"? Any utterance is acceptable.
You seem to be suggesting the consequence he received was acceptable because the courts eventually sided with him. There should have been no consequence to his speech in this instance. Police training, and their seeming inability to accept wrongdoing, is as ever the larger issue, but while the laws dont need eliminating you seem pretty cavalier on the basis it basically worked out.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
The court ruled that the police action against him was excessive. The courts have protected the public from excessive police action against people's opinions. It's time to end police investigations of people being mean to each other in Twitter. It's a complete waste of everyone's time.
And resources.
How did the Police find the resources to go to somebodies workplace due to a "non-crime" but they lack the resources to investigate burglaries?
It's one of the few beliefs that unites more or less all parts of the Right spectrum, social conservative to libertarian: that the police should be thief takers, not glorified social workers.
The Court sided with the defendant. He had no loss of Freedom of Speech.
Or do you really mean that you want "Consequence-free Freedom of Speech"? Any utterance is acceptable.
Unless said utterance includes an incitement to violence for which physical restraint is required, the consequence of any given utterance should not be a visit from the police. If the offendees feel that serious about an individuals utterances, the recourse should be civil, not criminal.
And, yes, I take it as a given that dilution of "consequence-free Freedom of Speech" is a Bad Thing. If it must be restricted, it must be something more significant than hurting someone's tiny feelings.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
Do away with all such laws may be too far, but this guy had to go through a very long process and a court judgement to not be in fear of potential police harassment for lawful activity. They should have backed down long ago or better yet not soughg to infringe his liberty unreasonably in the first place.
I would not disagree with that, but the case was dismissed. The defendent is innocent. No change has been made to Freedom of Speech laws.
We still have it.
Yes, so the concept won in court over the thought police. It was a good day. What don't you understand about that?
Was it not rather an indication that the existing law protects freedom of expression, and that it is the police who need education on what the law actually is (not for the first time).
Yes. Here we have the police pushing a case which they should not have done. They have been known to do this in other areas. For example, they sought to get Colin Stagg banged up for a murder he did not commit. Does it follow from this that we should scrap the "murder laws". I think not.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
That’s a very low bar you’re setting, Beibheirli.
No. We have always had Freedom of Speech. This just proves it. The Police made a mistake and the Courts found in favour of the defendant.
Lack of Freedom-of-Speech is more like North Korea where if you say the "wrong thing" they wheel out the aircraft guns and aim them at you.
Not all despotism comes from in the form of North Korea.
I tend to agree that the hate speech laws are liable to intimidatory over-interpretation by the Police. I also think social media has unleashed a sewer that has debauched public discourse.
Not sure what the answer is, but thank goodness this judge has his head screwed on.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
Do away with all such laws may be too far, but this guy had to go through a very long process and a court judgement to not be in fear of potential police harassment for lawful activity. They should have backed down long ago or better yet not soughg to infringe his liberty unreasonably in the first place.
I would not disagree with that, but the case was dismissed. The defendent is innocent. No change has been made to Freedom of Speech laws.
We still have it.
Yes, so the concept won in court over the thought police. It was a good day. What don't you understand about that?
Your view that therefore the law needs to be changed.
Big win for freedom of speech today and hopefully a step back from the UK turning into a country that has thought police. It's time for the government to completely do away with the stupid hate speech laws.
Really? How?
The tweeter expressed his opinion. The courts ruled that it was ok. He is still a free man.
What Freedom of Speech did he lose? Or gain?
Do away with all such laws may be too far, but this guy had to go through a very long process and a court judgement to not be in fear of potential police harassment for lawful activity. They should have backed down long ago or better yet not soughg to infringe his liberty unreasonably in the first place.
I would not disagree with that, but the case was dismissed. The defendent is innocent. No change has been made to Freedom of Speech laws.
We still have it.
Yes, so the concept won in court over the thought police. It was a good day. What don't you understand about that?
Your view that therefore the law needs to be changed.
That's a separate discussion, related to this one, but separate. We shouldn't have hate speech laws, only laws against inciting violence.
See Boris NI to Scotland bridge has been dwarfed with the recommendation to build dams from lands end to france and northern scotland to norway taking 100 years to build to prevent rising sea levels at a cost of 250 - 500 billion plus
And I am not joking
Wouldn't that leave Ireland and the west coasts of the UK & Norway somewhat..er..exposed?
You would have thought so but this is a proposal by a Dutch Government Scientist which requires 2 dams to completely enclose the north sea
The ultimate in recycling - re-use our post-glacial raised beaches!
Was it not rather an indication that the existing law protects freedom of expression, and that it is the police who need education on what the law actually is (not for the first time).
Yes. Here we have the police pushing a case which they should not have done. They have been known to do this in other areas. For example, they sought to get Colin Stagg banged up for a murder he did not commit. Does it follow from this that we should scrap the "murder laws". I think not.
We have ample evidence that the police are corrupt, ineffective and liable to abuse legislation. So keep their remit to a minimum. We need to try to ensure persons and property are secured from harm; we can't do away with laws against theft or murder. We don't have the same need with emotional harm from others' freedom of speech. Keep the police out of it; at worst, confine the recourse to civil law.
Comments
We still have it.
NEW THREAD
And, yes, I take it as a given that dilution of "consequence-free Freedom of Speech" is a Bad Thing. If it must be restricted, it must be something more significant than hurting someone's tiny feelings.
I tend to agree that the hate speech laws are liable to intimidatory over-interpretation by the Police.
I also think social media has unleashed a sewer that has debauched public discourse.
Not sure what the answer is, but thank goodness this judge has his head screwed on.