another example of UK style "free" speech

[paulsby]

http://volokh.com/2010/05/02/street-preacher-arrested-in-england-for-public-statements-that-homosexuality-is-a-sin/#more-30627
Dale McAlpine was charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour contrary to the Public Order Act 1986....

Mr Mcalpine< and two others were preaching and leafletting in> the pedestrianised shopping precinct in the centre of Workington....

Mr Mcalpine said a woman came up to him and they became engaged in a debate about his faith, during which he says he recited a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians in the Bible, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery, drunkenness and homosexuality, as well as talking about repentance and salvation.


He and the woman were standing close to each other and he said he did not raise his voice.

Mr Mcalpine says that as the woman left, one of the two officers, PCSO Sam Adams, approached her and had a brief chat before walking towards him. Mr Mcalpine asked Mr Adams if everything was OK.

According to Mr Mcalpine, Mr Adams said there had been complaints and warned him that if he made racist or homophobic remarks he could be arrested. Mr Mcalpine said: ‘I told him I was not homophobic but sometimes I did say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator, but it was not against the law to say this.

‘The PCSO then told me he was gay and he was the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender liaison officer for the police. ‘I said, “It is still a sin”, and our conversation ended. It wasn’t a loud or aggressive conversation.’ ...

Soon after midday, Mr Mcalpine took over from on the stepladder and says he preached for about 20 minutes.

He said he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, and that religions such as Buddhism, Islam and even Roman Catholicism were not the way of salvation, but did not speak about homosexuality....

A few minutes later three regular uniformed policemen arrived and Mr Mcalpine said one asked him if he had made homophobic remarks.

Mr Mcalpine said he told the officers that while he was not homophobic, he did believe homosexuality was a sin and there was no law against saying so....

was told that the two PCSOs had alleged that they heard him shouting that homosexuality was a sin, which had distressed them and members of the public.

He was eventually charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986 and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public....

The Public Order Act 1986 has been used by the police in a number of similar cases, including that of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, the Christian hoteliers cleared earlier this year of insulting a Muslim guest at their Liverpool hotel.

In 2002 pensioner Harry Hammond was convicted under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. When preaching in Bournemouth, Mr Hammond held up a sign saying: ‘Stop Immorality’, ‘Stop Homosexuality’, ‘Stop Lesbianism’, ‘Jesus is Lord’.

In 2006, police arrested and charged Christian campaigner Stephen Green for handing out leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff. The case was dropped....

[The Magistrate]

1. An Unpersecuted Christian, Sir, Is An Affront To The Lord

This really does not much bother me....

[paulsby]

14. in a FREE country, you counter bad speech with good speech

in the UK, you arrest the bad speech

i know which i prefer

[The Magistrate]

18. People Going About Their Daily Lives, Sir, Ought Not Be Required to Submit To Public Abuse

Why should anyone be put to the onorous task of 'countering' this by debate while on their way to work or the supermarket ot wherever?

Are you prepared to, at the drop of a hat, engage in debate with verbally abusive lunatics who may be shouting on street-corners, whatever other busines or pleasure you may have on your plate the moment you hear them?

Do you imagine the people you are defending here would make any less complaint if, wherever they appeared, a half dozen people showed up to surround them and denounce them strenuously n insukting and abusive terms. Would you complain if the police allowed this verbal assault to continue?

[paulsby]

20. that;'s the price of living in a free society

i GLADLY deal with it in downtown seattle.

and again, you are stretching the law

if a dozen people SURROUNDED you etc. then they would be committing a crime

that is entirely different than expressing "insulting" ideas in a public place which is ALL you have to do to run afoul of england's law,.

the guy was expressing his opinion, and he offended the wrong people, to include the local constabulary (which is the worst part - that the COP was offended should not be relevant), and he was arrested

i would MUCH rather suffer the slings and arrows of speech i disagree with than cede authority to the govt to decide what insulting speech did and didn't pass muster

but then again, i value freedom

i know. it's a radical concept

[The Magistrate]

24. Nonesense, Sir: Not Insulting And Abusing Others Is The Price Of Living In Any Society

It is interesting to note that, as a practical matter, you do not really approve of the remedy for 'bad speech' you proposed yourself, namely makng clear and present your disagreement with it. You would, it seems, want people who shouted down a person who was engaged in wholesale verbal abuse and insult in public to be placed under arrest for interfering with that person.

This mantra of 'I value freedom' is an interesting one. In the example given, you seem to locate 'freedom' in the ability to attack fellow citizens, to make them feel badly, or even injured.

[paulsby]

27. again, you misstate

as usual

we are not talking about ATTACKING anybody

we are talking about expressing ideas

when a group of 12 people surround somebody and don't let him move (ingress/egress) they are committing a crime. when somebody expresses an OPINION that happens to be insulting , they are NOT

stop moving the goalposts

hth

NOBODY should EVER be arrested for expressing their opinion on a public street, park, etc.

it's that simple

even if that opinion is INSULTING, which is all it takes under UK law

[The Magistrate]

31. An Idea Can Be, Sir, And In Fact Often Is, An attack On A Person Or Group Of Persons

You are attempting a distinction that does not actually exist, and it is unclear why you are doing so.

You mis-state the facts of this case when you say that when someone expresses an opinion that is abusive of thers it is never a crime, for under English law it is a crime, and that is what we are discussing. You think it is bad that it is a crime to engage in public insult and abuse in England, and it does not much bother me that it is.

It seems to me that it is a fairly basic element of any society that a person can excpect to pass the day without being offered insult, abuse, or threat on the street. A law aimed at securing this strikes me as reasonable.

[The Straight Story]

38. So insults are a crime there? Jeebus, most of DU would be in trouble there

I for one am willing to put up with insults because I find them an integral part of a free society. So many people seem to want the govt to protect them from being offended - kind of reminds me of those puritans who want to pass laws insure people don't have sex before marriage, etc, since they find those things sinful/offensive.

[woo me with science]

80. No, it is not a fairly basic element of a free society

to pass laws against insulting speech.

Sheesh.

[The Magistrate]

89. It Is Certainly An Element Of Any Society's Civil Peace, Ma'am

That persons going about their peaceable pursuits can expect they will not be offered insult, abuse, or threat as they do so.

If you imagine you can have liberty without civility you are excused from further comment on the topic, as there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously....

[woo me with science]

95. I find your opinions here

offensive and insulting to the very idea of a free society.

But I would never want you subject to government punishment for expressing something stupid, insulting, or offensive. :)

[The Magistrate]

97. They Would Not Be Considered So, Ma'am, Under the Law Being Discussed

[sabrina 1]

34. Wrong, we are talking about defaming people, a whole

segment of society actually. And even here, where you claim 'speech' is so free, try smearing the good name of someone who has the means to take you to court.

ARE homosexuals 'sinners'? He may believe that. I may believe my neighbor is a thief. Both of us may have those opinions, but when we spread them around and in so doing cause harm to others, we are NOT exercising a right to free speech, we are hurting others and if held accountable for it, may find just how expensive that speech may be.

I would much prefer a society that protects its citizens from this kind of dangerous rabble-rousing than one that excuses it under the guise of 'free speech'.

If someone publicly smears an individual or a whole segment of society on a public road here and they are asked to stop the harassment and refuse to do so, it is very likely that they would be arrested here also.

This person was asked to stop, for good reason. He was in a public place. What he was doing is called harassment.

[woo me with science]

82. Agh!

Yeah, let's just replace the First Amendment with the right not to get your feelings hurt.

[hack89]

99. Aren't pro-choice people supporting the violent killing of unborn children?

and shouldn't society protects its citizens from this kind of dangerous rabble-rousing rather than excuse it under the guise of 'free speech'?

Swords have two edges - to decide if your idea is a good one, imagine it being wielded by a conservative, republican government. Considering many of the Presidents we have elected in the past 30 years, Why do you assume that your morals will prevail?

[Flaneur]

2. Yes. They have different laws over there. I'm trying to work up some outrage...

[paulsby]

4. yes, it;'s called no freedom of speech where according to the law

which i cite, it is a crime merely to INSULT somebody

Section 5 of the Act reads, in part,

“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)
uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”


that disgusts me. i often post on free speech abuses in other countries and will continue to do so.

it's also EXTREMELY prone to abuse and very selective enforcement. merely using "insulting words OR behavior" is an offence.

that's truly ridiculous

i have no outrage because it's long since passed. i am almost numb to the lack of freedom they respect

[ZeitgeistObserver]

6. Other countries will take your concern under advisement.

Well no, actually they won't.

[paulsby]

8. nor does the US take the concern of a bunch of people in DU

whinging about US law or policy,who don't live in the US

yet, i respect those who do so.

free speech. it's what's for dinner

it's sad because these laws are (relatively) new. UK *used* to have much broader speech protection

[ZeitgeistObserver]

11. Well it's a chatsite,

so I doubt the US govt pays any attention to it, no matter who's talking.

[paulsby]

13. i agree although there are many here that are convinced otherwise

and their posts are always fun to read.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. And my British husband is horrified by the hatred from groups like Westboro

Different cultures, different laws.

[paulsby]

10. great

he can criticize us and i can criticize england

the difference is i can criticize and even INSULT somebody in my country w./o running afoul of a vague and arbitrarily enforced law.

in the UK, i can't

i've had people call police here on street preachers etc. because they made the person feel "uncomfortable"

that falls under... tough shit

nobody in the US has the RIGHT not to be exposed to speech that offends them in public

[The Magistrate]

15. And Yet, Sir, Englishmen And Women Consider Themselves To Be Free, By And Large

An astonishing proportion of the population manages to get through its days without their behavior being crimped in the slightest by the law you find so offensive. After all, one need only refrain from engaging in threatening or insulting or verbally abusing another person, in order for this law to have no impact at all.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. Yep. I'll have to inform my husband he's not truly free.

I'm sure it will be a shock.

[paulsby]

23. that;s how the slippery slope works

let him know for me.

[NeedleCast]

48. With due respect

Most people in North Korea consider themselves to be free. Very few people have an objective outlook on what it means to be free.

[The Magistrate]

49. And You Know This How, Sir?

You have visited the place, talked with residents of it, read extensive literature on its social mores?

[sabrina 1]

37. Interesting that you, who defend the shooting of

American citizens by cops, should be so 'disgusted' by this minor incident. I have lived in Europe and never felt my freedom to be threatened to the extent that people do now in this country. The only killing of a citizen by a cop that I recall took place in Greece and was so unacceptable that it caused riots that went on for days, and was news all over Europe.

Your priorities are a little off. I would trade having a law like that for making it a crime for cops to kill citizens just because the 'feel threatened' any day.

Spare us your phony outrage. You're not fooling anyone here.

[Zix]

39. I didn't spot big ol' freedom guy here all over the Arizona "papers please" threads, did you?

Seems like a pretty selective idea of freedom this guy likes...

[sabrina 1]

41. Odd isn't it? What he is 'disgusted' by

compared to what he defends. He defends cop killings of American citizens but is 'outraged' over this trivia :eyes:

Sometimes I wonder about some of the people who post here ... support for cops who shoot citizens is not something I am used to seeing in progressive circles.

[Lyric]

52. Where's your outrage for Saudi Arabia?

Or the Vatican? Or any of the HUNDREDS of other countries that limit speech?

I don't want to see such limitations here, but I'm also not about to pick on Britain. Compared to most other nations, Britain's laws are MILD.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. Yeah, they don't allow hate speech against the gay community there. The horror.

Truly this is the greatest injustice of all time.

[paulsby]

5. who is we?

are not there plenty of posters here NOT from the US who criticize our laws? i recall numerous self-professed canadians and europeans doing so

and i respect that.

and among the problems with the law, which i cite:
Section 5 of the Act reads, in part,

“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)
uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”


is that it criminalizes using merely "insulting words"

that's it

use insulting words, and it;'s a CRIME in england

and of course THAT is enforced fairly and impartially ya think?

thank the constitution that we have one that makes such laws unconstitutional here.

but then i value free speech. i know. it's a radical concept

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. You expect DU to be horribly upset that a bigoted asshole can't preach his hatespeech?

Good luck with that.

[paulsby]

12. i don't expect many people

to be upset with bad law AS LONG as it is enforced against bad people

that's how bad law creeps in

"oh well, we will only use these vague, arbitrary and freedom encroaching laws against BAD people, we would never use it against you guys"

and people accept this

the passive subjects (not citizens) that they are

[The Magistrate]

19. So What, Sir, Is Your Definition Of 'Citizen'?

[paulsby]

21. a citizen does not cede the power to govt.

to protect him from ideas he may be insulted by

[The Magistrate]

26. A Rather Crabbed And Specialized Formula, Sir....

If the citizen retains power to protect him or herself from ideas he or she may be insulted by, then what part has government when such traditional methods of redress against public insult as the riding which and the pistol are employed by the citizen offered such insult? Clearly, Sir, on your stated terms, if someone took a cane to one of these people it would be no business of the government, as the mark of a citizen is retaining the right to protect himself or herself from insult, with the government standing clear of the matter.

[paulsby]

29. not at all

i will assume you can stop playing games and distinguish the difference between sticks and stones

the guy was expressing an opinion... one that homosexuality was immoral etc.

i 100% disagree with him. i think homosexuality is moral

and i 100% support his right to state that opinion in public.

which is his right in the US, but not in the UK

[The Magistrate]

32. What Difference Between Sticks And Stones, Sir?

You have stated that the defining characteristic of being a citizen, as opposd to being a subject, is that the citizen does not accord to his or her government any duty to protect him or her from insult, but instead reserves that right for himself or herself. If the government has no part in the matter, clearly it must be up to the citizen what is the fit exercise of that right., and if the citize feels a sound thrashing through the square is appropriate, it is hardly a matter for the government. The terms are yours, not mine. If you do not like their full aplication, perhaps you should rethink their validity....

[sabrina 1]

44. No, you don't respect those Canadians et al (try most of the

world these days) who criticize this country. Your feelings are hurt by it, that is why you search the internet to find trivia like this to 'get back' at the world for daring to do so.

Why let it bother you so much? I know rightwingnuts get all uptight when anyone dares to criticize this country, but that's because they know a lot of the criticism is deserved and they are not in the habit of facing facts. Progressives otoh while they don't like their country being critized, are not too stupid not to recognize facts when they see them, and would prefer to fix whatever is wrong.

[Zix]

17. Paulsby...

You are one of those guys that just doesn't get it.

[paulsby]

22. i am one of the few here (sadly) that still respects true freedom

in a world where it is diminished day by day

i see people all the time in my job want the rights of others violated. they call police to complain about X, despite the fact that X is not a crime andor constitutionally protected

rule of law matters

i thank god we have a constitution that protects us

[mr blur]

25. Your god is responsible for your constitution?

No wonder you have little idea what you're talking about.

[paulsby]

28. actually, i was being poetic

you could say "i thank providence" and it would be equally meaningful

but thanks for missing the point

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. Careful blur. The UK Gestapo will be in to drag you away soon.

[paulsby]

54. i wouldn't make the godwin reference

that's your leap.

UK citizens enjoy less free speech protection than we do

they are not living in a fascist state. i'll reserve that kind of hysterical rhetoric for those who aren't interested in rational discussion

[Zix]

33. You've chosen a pretty telling example to illustrate your point.

Quite a carefully selected example, one might say.

Have you won yet?

[paulsby]

55. adults having discussions aren't interested in "winning"

i realize that many , if not most people who approach internet debate/discussion are not interested in exchanging ideas, learning something and seriously considering opposing pov's

but i am.

heck, part of the reason i am pro-choice and pro-RKBA is because of stuff people told me online, in the real world, and in books, etc.

so, i'm not interested in "winning."

i'm interested in discussion

i cherish the right of free speech and have for as long as i remember

it disgusts me that many countries like UK, canada, france, etc. have whittled that right away in their countries.

i will rage against it, but i am always open to the possibility of changing my mind

hth

[sabrina 1]

42. Yet, you have no problem with a citizen, who gets drunk and

a bit rambunctious, being shot to death by a cop who 'feels threatened' by an unarmed drunk. You certainly weren't concerned much about that citizen's constitutional rights.

Either you are a disingenuous poseur, or you are severely challenged in the priorities department.

I suspect you are the former to be honest but it's fun playing, watching you fall all over yourself trying to 'defend freedom'! Too funny. Lol, as if people are so easily fooled.

[woo me with science]

78. So far....

This is a very scary thread.

[Douglas Carpenter]

101. yet - the range of and quality of actual political debate is far, far greater in the UK

and probably any other Western democracy than in the United States. In fact, it is greater in many authoritarian non-democracies than in the United States. I've spent most of my life abroad, Europe, the Middle East and the Far East and I certainly know for absolute certainty this to be true. Good Lord, President Obama would be considered center-right almost anywhere else in the world and certainly in the U.K. His health care bill would be considered far right. Yet in the mainstream of discussion in the United States we have serious discussion from mainstream political and media figures debating whether or not he is pursuing a radical socialist agenda.

I suppose I agree more with you in terms of a more absolutist view of "freedom of speech" and would agree that a person has a right preach whatever they please on any street corner - including the most offensive of opinions. But let's not delude ourselves, America with it's theoretical absolute approach to "freedom of speech" has not produced in the mainstream of political discussion a healthy range of debate or even very much intelligent discussion of issues. The U.K. with it's flawed approach to "freedom of speech" has done a much better job at that.

[Turborama]

103. And profanity is allowed on TV after 9 PM

Whereas in America profanity is strictly clamped down on in case it may "offend" someone.

[name not needed]

35. He should be allowed to speak his opinion, however offensive and idiotic it may be.

Yes, his opinions are abhorrent, outdated and have no place in modern society. However, the great thing about free speech is that it allows bigots like McAlpine to hang themselves with their own words.

[tularetom]

36. Hope you remember your concept of "freedom"

the next time you encounter a group of people marching down the street chanting "kill the pigs".

You seem obsessed with reminding us that you are a police officer, so when you see these people, you will, I'm sure, counsel your fellow officers to allow them their freedom to speak.

Personally, I'm all in favor of freedom, but I'm not selective about it. If I'm offended by one of these wacko christians, I believe I should have the freedom to punch him in the mouth.

[hack89]

40. Many progressives have a strong authoritarian streak

only conservatives should not be allowed to enforce their prejudices with law.

[Zix]

46. That's because they're prejudices

Whereas the principles we want enforced are principles.

[hack89]

47. How silly of me

I keep forgeting that the reason we are progressives is because we know the "truth".

[Zix]

50. Dude...

Either you believe what you believe or you don't. There's no point in pretending to yourself or anyone else that your beliefs are part of some sort of pick and mix blend of personal preferences.

Conservatives are prejudiced - much of their ideology is based on making assumptions about people based on characteristics that should have no influence on how they are perceived. Progressives are not prejudiced, they do NOT make assumptions about people based on characteristics that should have no influence on how they are perceived.

You use the word prejudice in a slightly peculiar way. I understand it from its roots - "pre" meaning before and "judice" meaning judge, i.e., judging before you know what's what.

Progressives want laws enshrined that prevent this. Conservatives want laws enshrined that encourage it.

It's nonsense to assume that both positions are somehow equivalent and we can discuss which is or isn't "truth". Judging situations and people before you have all the necessary information is just irrational.

Progressives seek to avoid prejudice and conservatives embrace it, yet you claim that the same flaw is equally attributable to both sides?

Are you one of those people who think that being against bigotry is a form of bigotry itself? In which case, you are sadly mistaken.

[hack89]

70. What we can discuss is whether it is wise to give government

the power to decide what constitutes prejudice or what is offensive - for obvious reasons I don't think it is wise at all. Do you doubt for a second that with a few choice modifications what you just wrote could be written by a conservative as a justification as to why progressive views are harmful and must be legislated against? Your POV is totally irrelevant to the argument if it is the conservative in power (think GWB) and you are his target.

I will never accept that merely voicing an opinion, no matter how offensive, should be a crime. There is no right to not be offended. More to the point, I know that if the Nazis and KKK can freely voice their views than my rights to free expression are in no danger. When sincere Christians are turned into criminals for merely stating their views on homosexuality - well that line just moved a hell of a lot closer to you and me. You may sit there all smug and secure in your obvious moral superiority but don't be blinded to the fact that others may not see those admirable qualities in you - to many you could be no more than a " left wing Marxist that wants to destroy traditional American values". Do you really want to give people like that the idea that they can shut you up by criminalizing your views?

As to your post - are you familiar with the "True Scotsman" fallacy? Taking your definition and looking at the constant stream of hate, bigotry and vitriol seen on DU there are few progressive here.

I am not one of those people who think that being against bigotry is a form of bigotry itself - I am one of those that think that bigoted thoughts are not a crime. Actions yes - thoughts no.

[U4ikLefty]

75. Speech is an action.

[hack89]

93. So advocating the murder of unborn children (abortion) could be a crime?

I think you completely missed my point - start with the assumption that fundamentalist conservatives are in power and ask yourself if they look at speech the same way you do.

[woo me with science]

96. And when people say "fuck you" on DU...

I am trying to grasp all the implications here...:scared:

:rofl:

[Zix]

90. Nice theory.

Let's see how long you last outside a church with a big sign telling everybody passing by that those inside it are weird and diseased.

Let me ask you something - have you ever been on the sharp end of these non-criminal bigotted thoughts?

[hack89]

94. Do you agree that broad bushed stereotyping is part of the problem? nt

[get the red out]

43. It's their country

If they wanted something different, wouldn't they call for it?

[Fumesucker]

45. And yet which country has a higher percentage of its citizens locked in cages?

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/world.htm

Imprisonment RATE per 100,000 population.

715____United States of America

142____United Kingdom: England & Wales

[Toucano]

79. Yep.

The Yankee definition of freedom is the only valid definition of freedom.

[Nye Bevan]

51. I am absolutely shocked by many of the responses in this thread

The Government passes a law that says that if their law enforcement agents determine that someone has said something "insulting" then they have committed a criminal offense.

And by and large, DUers are OK with this, because:

1. In the example you cite the person being "persecuted" by this law is a Christian;
2. People have the right not to be insulted while on their way to the supermarket;
3. A "basic element of society" is that people have the right to go through every day without ever being "insulted";
4. Some guy on a street corner claiming that homosexuality is a sin is actually a "dangerous rabble-rouser";
5. If you perceive that someone is "smearing" you in public then that person should be criminally prosecuted;
6. People already living under this system "think that they are free";
7. This whole issue is "trivia";
8. This law is good because it prevents "hate speech against the gay community";
9. This law is good because it prevents a "bigoted asshole preaching hatespeech";
10. Allowing people to insult each other is equivalent to allowing them to "cane" each other;
11. You, Paulsby, are "one of those guys" that "just doesn't get it" (I admit, that powerful argument very nearly swayed me)
12. You dared to use the phrase "Thank God";
13. The US has a higher percentage of its population in prison. (Huh?)
14. You, "Freedom Guy", were not "all over" DU protesting the Arizona immigration law;
15. Saudi Arabia and the Vatican also limit free speech.

I am amazed that DUers seem to have so little appreciation of the First Amendment. I wonder what the responses would have been like if some anti-bankster demonstrators were criminally prosecuted for "insulting" Goldman Sachs executives. Ah, but that's different, I expect the response would be. I trust the Government to decide which kind of "insulting" speech is deserving of criminal prosecution and which kind of "insulting" speech is not. Of course, many people just want a quiet life and will take care not to say anything, anytime, that could remotely be perceived as "insulting", just to stay on the safe side, and not upset the Government.

[paulsby]

57. thank you and fwiw i have made multiple references to being against the AZ law

if somebody implied or outright stated i didn't

i made that VERY clear.

i once booked angela davis for a speech. she said numerous insulting comments about capitalists.

susan sontag famously said "the white race" is a cancer

so, if they said these things in public, people in DU would be ok with them being arrested for "insulting " speech.

what is most ironic about this arrest is that this "preacher" (who i completely disagree with) was spouting his opinion (god forbid) that was in accord with the COE , the official church of england

thus, the unique and ironic conclusion that merely stating the official beliefs of england's state church, heck READING from the bible (and certainly the koran) would open the reader to numerous instances where they said things that could and would be perceived as insulting and degrading to passers by

but that's ok with DU people.

i ESPECIALLY agree with the point about whether the COP was insulted or not being entirely irrelevant. on duty cops should not ever be "the deciders" in this regards. this holds true in the US , under case law.


thanks for your post btw

[Zix]

58. Nye...

You don't get it either.

[name not needed]

60. Apparently you're the only one who does

:eyes:

[Dr. Strange]

61. You've been here since 2004 and you're shocked?

I find that a LOT of people (not just on DU, and not just on the left or right) are all for free speech--as long as it's speech they agree with.

But when it's "unpatriotic" or "hate" speech, or occurs in another country, then all of a sudden censorship isn't so bad. You know, as long as it's "our side" doing the censoring.

[Nye Bevan]

67. Strange.

Your reply to my post says at the bottom (in red) "As of 04/29/2010, this DU Member is Ignoring you and Orrex." But if you are ignoring me, how could you read my post? IS this a DU bug? I have never seen anything like this before, is this something new, or is it that I never been ignored before?

[Dr. Strange]

69. No, it's a joke, started by Orrex.

I'm riffing on his sigline, which can be seen here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9351366&mesg_id=9351366
:hi:

[Common Sense Party]

86. We LOVE it when it's conservatives getting shouted down

or getting nailed in the face with a pie.

The term should really be "freedom of progressive speech"

[Flaneur]

62. The First Amendment is not at play here.

This is England. They have their own laws.

[woo me with science]

84. Yeah, but the attitude is extremely disturbing.

People are advocating this approach and giving the impression that they would not hesitate to piss away our own Bill of Rights to save someone from being insulted.

[sabrina 1]

104. Do you not know that we already have speech

in this country that courts have decided is illegal? Or did you, like that OP, really believe that in the U.S. you can say anything you want and it is protected? If so, you are wrong. There is speech that is harmful, that is intended to be harmful and common sense if nothing else, helps judges to separate that kind of speech from the rest. And they have, several times.

This is the silliest OP I've seen for a while, and what the point of it is, I don't know. But if it was intended to show how great the U.S. is compared to other countries regarding freedom, it failed miserably and will continue to fail as long as we continue to lock up one in every 100 American citizens.

[X_Digger]

66. +1 n/t

[joeybee12]

68. I'm shocked that you're no considering the source...that maybe this

is all bunk and propoganda.

[MadBadger]

100. But a Nazi march is a-okay!

[marmar]

53. We know, we know.....Brits and Canadians are the scum of the earth.

:eyes:

[paulsby]

56. strawman noted

plenty of people can criticize US law and policy w/o believing that about the us citizens

further, this is not about the brits and canadians, it's about their GOVERNMENT

hth

[HipChick]

59. +100...I wish I could double unrec this thread...and the first time another country tell the US what

to do..there will be outrage..

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Odd that of all the evil laws in the world this one riles you

Some nations have laws that execute gay people on the word of a cop. And yet this one gets your goat. And also odd, that in this complex law, which has involved all manner of minorities, Muslims in particular, you decide to present it as a 'gays against freedom' issue.
The UK allows for equalized treatment of gay couples. This nation treats us to abuse and injustice, and we have to bear out leadership trashing our community and families behind a thin veneer of religious language. That is not freedom, officer. Freedom exists in a society of people equally protected by the law, not in a society where one group holds rights that others do not.

[X_Digger]

64. What the hell is wrong with people..

.. when did 'offending someone' become an actionable offense?

Are they so thin-skinned that they would rather give up a fundamental freedom just to keep from offending someone, somewhere?

[woo me with science]

85. Some people elevate feelings above everything.

Principle be damned.

Successful tyranny doesn't always start with a stick. It often gets its foot in the door wearing a soft, pretty blanket of good intentions.

[Zix]

88. There was an pro-hunt rally here in the UK a few years ago.

One of the protestors was carrying a sign saying that he liked to torture small animals. A police officer demanded that he put it away, which he did.

You may want a world stuffed with bizarre people's naked neuroses scrawled all over your life like grafitti but I don't.

[Nye Bevan]

102. What if anti-war protestors are deemed by law enforcement to be "bizarre people"

with "naked neuroses"? You have no problem with the Government deciding which speech is "bizarre" and deserving of criminal prosecution, and which speech is acceptable?

[Turborama]

65. Meanwhile, bestiality is legal in Florida, unless it's with porcupines. But...

...all nuisances that tend to annoy the community, injure the health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals are misdemeanors of the second degree.

Sex with animals is perfectly legal for men in Washington State, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds.

3 states had laws against zoosexuality that were declared unconstitutional by state courts and subsequently removed: Arkansas, Montana and North Carolina.

Some more examples how America is a "FREE country"...

In Alabama it is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.

In Rockville, Virginia, persons may not swear while on the highway.

In Mississippi one may be fined up to $100 for using “profane language” in public places and private citizens may personally arrest any person that disturbs a church service.

In Arizona it's illegal to own 2 dildos & it's a class 2 misdemeanor if one places a mark upon a flag which is “likely to provoke physical retaliation” .

In Idaho a person may not be seen in public without a smile on their face.

In Ohio women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.

All sex toys are banned in Georgia.

Oral sex is illegal in 18 states, including Kansas and Utah.

ETA In my world, the purposeful misuse of punctuation and non-use of capitalization is a premeditated crime against grammar.

[melm00se]

71. I saw earlier today

a thread lauding of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I point all to look at this clause in the Preamble:

the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...

While the clause does talk about freedom from fear, I don't see how the person mentioned in the OP was creating fear. He stated that he believed that homosexuality was a sin. It does not appear that he was calling for any sort of violence against homosexuals nor creating what a reasonable person would call an atmosphere of fear.

I will say that in my study of world history, the USA seems to have the most liberal interpretation of the "freedom of speech" especially when it comes to the role of government in limiting/curbing/punishing those who cross the line and situations where the government, in fact, does act are clearly defined and restricted. For example: the legal definition of obscenity (the Miller test), the legal definition of libel (the Sullivan decision) and the like. If anything, the US Supreme Court seems to bend over backwards to ensure that the 1st Amendment is not violated.

If a law like the British Public Order Act 1986 were passed here in the USA, it would never have made it past it's first usage as the case would have been struck down if not by the 1st appeal but most certainly before it hit the USSC and if, for some reason, it did make to the Supreme Court it would draw a 9-0 or an 8-1 decision.

The accurate point was made earlier that many here at DU support the 1st amendment if and only if they support the stance that the speech is promulgating. The ultimate test of your support of freedom of speech is your willingness to defend a person's right to say something no matter how strongly you disagree with their stance (that is, of course, barring a situation where they are calling for violence).

[sabrina 1]

72. In Germany people were free to express their opinions ,

that being Jewish was a crime. It started with speech. We call it propaganda.

In Rwanda, hate radio used speech to urge citizens to slaughter over 800,000 of their fellow citizens after they were insulted. The radio personel never had to lift a weapon themselves, all they had to do was talk.

The Christian Right has been demonizing (excuse me, 'insulting') gays for decades in this country, so successfully that they have convinced many of their followers that being gay is evil. Some people have acted on that speech and killed gays.

Blacks were insulted and denigrated for centuries also, so successfully that there are still Americans who do not believe they are entitled to the same rights as whites.

You cannot 'yell fire in a crowded theater'. It is illegal. The courts have decided that speech that can harm others is not protected speech. You cannot issue verbal terrorist threats either.

In a recent ruling on a case involving cyber bullying, the plaintiff won when the majority ruled that writing violent threats directed at someone they thought was gay on a website is not protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Their defense, as expected, was that their freedom of speech was being violated because they didn't mean what they said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17/BANA1CGRR9.DTL&tsp=1

The court majority said a message that threatens physical harm, even if it wasn't meant to be serious, loses its First Amendment protection and can be grounds for a lawsuit.

The British people have decided that verbally attacking gays as 'evil' can result in harm to gays. If speech is intended to cause harm to another, it is not protected.

Free speech absolutists really 'don't get it' as someone above said. The 1st Amendment was written to ensure that people are free to state their opinions without government interference. It was never meant to protect speech that caused harm to another.

[Nye Bevan]

73. Is it OK to insult Goldman Sachs executives

and accuse them of being criminals? Would you protect *everyone* from being insulted? Or only certain groups? Who should get to decide who people are allowed to insult?

[sabrina 1]

74. If someone threatens the lives of Goldman Sachs Executives

they should be protected from that. Reacting to information that some of them have mis-used public funds by calling them criminals, no, but they do have a right to sue anyone who by calling them criminals if they are not, causes them harm. If accusations are truthful it definitely is protected. Lies, not so much. Calling Gays 'sinners' as a group, is a lie and it is harmful.

Do you think that what happened in Rwanda should have been allowed to happen? If the UN had taken out the radios, untold numbers of lives would have been saved. Do you think the Founding Fathers intended to protect speech like that? I have a feeling they would be shocked at the interpretation of their intentions by some people today.

There is something called 'common sense' which seems to be lacking when it comes to deciding what kind of speech is harmful and what is merely insulting.

[Nye Bevan]

77. A step in the right direction.

You've moved from "insulting" people to "threatening lives". A big difference.

[sabrina 1]

83. I used the word 'insulting' as that was the word used so

flippantly to describe speech that was far from being just 'insulting'. I think you misunderstood my use of the word.

Europe is far closer to the history of what happened when 'insults' (read violent and/or hateful rhetoric) directed at targeted groups on a regular basis, resulted in the slaughter of approx. 12,000,000 human beings. They know what can happen when day after a day a particular ethnic or religious group is singled out and characterized with false, cruel words as 'the other'. They know how easily it was done.

As I pointed out, contrary to the attempt by this OP to pretend that here in the U.S. NO speech is cause for concern or subject to the law, I have demonstrated that that is not the case. There are consequences for certain kinds of speech. I'd like to see the OP walk up to a Congressman and threaten him with violence and then claim he was only exercising his right to free speech.

The OP was a ridiculous attempt to make some kind of point which apparently he failed to make. What he did succeed in doing was to show how little he understands the ideas behind the 1st Amendment and how the country he attempted to trash, is not that different from the U.S. in its views regarding what is and what is not 'speech that is meant to cause harm' which even here, is illegal.

[melm00se]

98. Let's break down what you said

In Germany people were free to express their opinions that being Jewish was a crime. It started with speech. We call it propaganda.

In Rwanda, hate radio used speech to urge citizens to slaughter over 800,000 of their fellow citizens after they were insulted. The radio personel never had to lift a weapon themselves, all they had to do was talk.

The Christian Right has been demonizing (excuse me, 'insulting') gays for decades in this country, so successfully that they have convinced many of their followers that being gay is evil. Some people have acted on that speech and killed gays.

being Jewish was a crime
...urge citizens to slaughter...
...successfully that they have convinced many of their followers that being gay is evil...

and back to the OP:

...he recited a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians in the Bible, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery, drunkenness and homosexuality, as well as talking about repentance and salvation.

comparing the circumstances you cite and the OP article are, to my eye at least, completely different situations.

Your examples: "crime", "urge...to slaughter" and "being gay is evil"(especially if the latter specifically called for violence), even in this country with the liberal interpretation of freedom of speech, would NOT be protected speech.

The events that are described in the opening post do not appear to create an atmosphere of a "clear and present danger" (this is what you alluded to with the quoting of Oliver Wendell Holmes: "yell fire in a crowded theater") that was described in Schenck v United States:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils...

In this country, simply stating that homosexuality is a sin, in a public place (or via a public conduit), would not constitute a "clear and present danger".

In fact, from my reading the above quoted section of the law:

Section 5 of the Act reads, in part,

“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)
uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

2 people walking down the street having a theological discussion on whether or not 1 Corinthians 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6&version=NIV) and Leviticus 18:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18%3A22&version=NIV) are at odds with the Christly teachings of Love and Forgiveness, if overheard by a gay activist (or an atheist or combination of the 2) could have charges leveled against them as they would meet the "insulting words" definition described in the Act.

back to your post:

In a recent ruling on a case involving cyber bullying...

according to the article, comments like "rip out your ... heart and feed it to you" and to "pound your head in with an ice pick" were clearly violent in nature and comparing them to "homosexuality is a sin" is comparing hand grenades and grapes.


The British people have decided that verbally attacking gays as 'evil' can result in harm to gays. If speech is intended to cause harm to another, it is not protected.

I dispute your quoting of "evil" as nowhere does that word appear in that article but to your intent: While the British people have deemed that insulting words or behavior are not protected speech, that is fine, however, Great Britain does not exist in a vacuum and doing the inevitable comparison to the US interpretation of "free speech" the British law is, comparably, quite restrictive.

Now, imagine porting this law, word for word, to the USA and accepting the British interpretation, applying it to the following events would carry implications that you may not like:

- Code Pink protests (that could offend neo-cons and pro war folks)
- Counter demonstrations to the tea party movement
- "Dung Virgin Mary"
- "Piss Christ"
- Certain posts here at DU

Free speech absolutists really 'don't get it' as someone above said.

it's kind of funny: there are people who feel that certain rights that they support are absolute (as an example radical pro-choice folks - "a women's right to control her body" - take this to such an extreme that it's not even funny, ditto for select 2nd amendment supporters) but ones that they don't agree with should be subject to reasonable (or in some cases, unreasonable) curbs (again, see pro-lifers and anti 2nd amendment types).

in my own defense, I would like to to re-read the following snip from my post:

...situations where the government, in fact, does act (to limit free speech) are clearly defined and restricted.

So I am fully cognizant that the 1st amendment is not an absolute right, and when the government does act it is in, as I said above, in clearly and narrowly defined situations.

[sabrina 1]

105. Thank you for a thoughtful post and for taking the trouble

to actually address the points I made. Sometimes in threads like these, especially when there is a clear agenda, I try to address both the agenda of the OP and the facts and obviously sometimes fail.

I appreciate your focus on the facts.

The point I wanted to make was that even here in the U.S. some speech is illegal, contrary to what some people in this thread appear to believe. And that the intentions of the Founding Fathers were never to protect people who intended to use speech to harm others.

I am glad, as you pointed out and to use your own words that in : situations where the government, in fact, does act (to limit free speech) are clearly defined and restricted.

I do not know the history of the British law that is obviously meant to protect Gays from being targeted, but I do know that Gays and Jews have a history as everyone knows, of being targeted in Europe and elsewhere.

Because of the extreme targeting of these groups in Europe not all that long ago, I'm sure there are people still alive who remember, or whose parents and grandparents were able to tell them about the way the targeting of those groups started. As one German professor stated it happened incrementally, not all at once, so you didn't really expect it to go so far, you became more and more uncomfortable about what you were hearing every day, but you thought someone would come along or something would happen to stop it before it went too far, but that didn't happen'

That is paraphrasing what he said. But, in every situation throughout history where one group has been targeted for extinction or oppression, they have been demonized mostly using speech/rpropaganda first.

Propaganda doesn't start out by being overt. You say the preacher didn't use the word 'evil'. No, he didn't but everyone knows by now that Fundamentalist Christians believe that homosexuality is evil so he didn't have to use the word. I think the British people do not want a repeat of what happened before, and while they have this law on their books, I doubt many people are sitting in jail for quoting the Bible but they do know not to go too far as that society will not tolerate it.

Just as the Founding Fathers were reacting to their times when they wrote the Constitution, times when in Europe someone could lose their head for insulting the king, Britain with this law, is reacting to their times, times when that very freedom of speech was taken to an extreme and many people died as a result.

If the Brits ever go too far with that law and hundreds of preachers end up in jail over it, I am certain there will be a reaction to that also.

However, my main point was that some speech can be and has been judged to be, even here, dangerous and it takes common sense to sort out what is and what isn't. After all, if someone calls the police and reports that their neighbor has threatened to kill them, would the police be right to say 'well, he's just exercising his right to free speech'? As I said, it is a matter of common sense.

Anyhow, thanks for your post, I agree mostly with what you said ~

[woo me with science]

76. This is a damned scary thread,

especially since people on DU are arguably the politically *active* ones.

I am sickened that people on DU of all places need a lesson in countering unpopular speech with SPEECH.

Watch your candidates for office, people. Safeguard your Bill of Rights.

[Codeine]

81. You are one of the ones

who doesn't have his head up his ass. I'm very uncomfortable that people I respect as progressives would curtail speech they dislike.

Who cares if somebody makes a statement you find offensive? That's called "freedom," motherfuckers -- don't fight it, revel in it!

[Zix]

87. You want Phelps?

Keep him. We don't.

[Codeine]

91. He's free to spout his shit,

just as I'm free to spout mine. I will not curtail the rights of others to express themselves as freely as I wish to express myself.

[Mekki]

92. lol

lol at Brits!