GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

hollydolly said:
Well again I know this will divide opinion.... but for the life of me I don't know why this woman found it so offensive to be called a fireman or a firefighter.. and was willing to have a person dismissed from their job for doing so... who cares IMO.. what your title is in a lifesaving job...
Click to expand...
In fact. The certificate my wife received after her education for her job, used the male form for the job title. She would never protest against it or even sue somebody.
 

I'm Not Perfect, but I am Scottish, and that's close enough ! 😊

Holly, I had the pleasure to meet a very nice Scottish couple at a hotel on the isle of Madeira in 1995. The husband even had learned the German language some decades ago and told me some facts on the grammar, that I never had thought about it. And he had a fine sense of humor.
 

I asked AI if Britain is experiencing an increase in limitations to free speech. :

Yes, many recent developments suggest freedom of speech is facing increased restrictions in the UK, leading one global free speech organization to downgrade the UK's status in its expression rankings.


Major areas of concern include:


  • Online Safety Act 2023: Critics argue this law incentivizes tech platforms to over-censor and remove legal but controversial speech to avoid massive fines, especially to protect children from broadly defined "harmful" content.
  • Buffer Zones: New laws in England and Wales have created "buffer zones" around abortion facilities, criminalizing all protest, including silent prayer, within those areas.
  • Hate Speech Laws: Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 has introduced sweeping new offenses for "stirring up hatred" through speech or online communication, with potential sentences of up to seven years.

However, it is important to note that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 has also created new duties for universities in England to actively protect and promote lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus.
 
I've followed this thread as I've found it interesting to see the different opinions of the posters regarding the ability of people to speak freely in the UK, i.e. voice their opinions on various subjects.

The ongoing verbal tennis match between Antoli and VaughanJB has helped me to think more clearly about how to present an argument in order to lessen the chances of such a slogging match beginning.

On the one hand VaughanJB argued that the number of police officers involved in an arrest was irrelevant. Whereas Antoli pointed out that using a large number of police officers to arrest someone for an opinion or even a joke they'd made, was in fact intimidation, and not in the spirit of the law, even though it may be lawful.

This argument has gone on and on, and I for one am becoming tired of having to read all the arguments being thrown by the two protagonists.

I will point out that VaughanJB is correct in saying that once a government has been elected they have the power to introduce laws on behalf of the population. However, some of the election promises made by various political parties when campaigning for election then get broken by the elected government, and if that government has an overall majority, then nothing can legally be done by the populace to stop the government from introducing laws that benefit no-one but themselves and their supporters.

I will also p;oint out that Antoli has been arguing this point throughout, that although the 'democratic' process has been followed during the run-up to a general election, after it, the population is often faced with a situation it did not vote for, i.e. a government that reneges on its manifesto promises, as is the situation in the UK at present.

So can we please leave it at that point, and let the dust settle for a while? As it seems to me on the sidelines that the two main participants in the argument are slowly descending into more personal attacks on the integrity of each other, and this was not the original intent of the thread.

Also, I don't want to see the police being called over any future slights suffered by either one of the two verbal combatants. None of us is a machine, we are all human and governed by our emotions. So we must all recognise that and learn to live with it.
(Even if it means we have to allow people to ride bicycles [both human and electric powered] on public roads without mandatory licences, insurance, road tax, and MOTs for their vehicles. GRRRRRRR!!! )

Question: Am I liable to be arrested as I've just shared a personal opinion on a public forum, about my dislike of the way in which people on cycles and powered cycles (and that includes escooters) are allowed to ignore the laws the rest of us must adhere to when driving powered vehicles? Answers on a postcard please to....... 😁👍
 
The issue, as I see it, is this: Parliament creates laws on criminal offences, including “hate speech.” Some of these laws are deliberately broad, but that then makes interpretation by enforcers necessary. Interpretation is never a good thing.

Then enter the NPCC (National Police Chiefs’ Council), which provides guidance to standardise practices across the 48 or so separate police forces in the UK. The NPCC being advisory, not legislative, and each force sets its own enforcement priorities. This results in variation across the country. Cumbria vs my own area of Staffordshire, for example, sit at opposite ends of the arrest spectrum for so called “hate speech.” Stafforshire, as far as I'm aware, hardly having any arests of this kind in comparison.

Meanwhile, Parliament and the government publicly criticise police forces when enforcement seems excessive or inconsistent. The courts then dismiss a significant number of arrests under “offensive speech” laws, with others receiving minimal or no sanctions.

So is this a “police state”? Or is it a structured, if somewhat messy one, of separation of powers?

So what do we have in the UK. Parliament (all political parties) makes the laws. NPCC gives guidance to the police. "The Crown Prosecution Service" decides what goes to court, not the police, and certainly not the government. Independent UK police forces (seperate of each other) enforce the laws, based on thair interpretation of the guidence they have been given. UK courts, guided by independent judicial bodies, review and adjudicate cases, throwing many out of court.
 
Last edited:
@George1959 & @hollydolly, I agree with both of you that I wouldn't sure over something like this or similar. IMO, there are many people out there who look for an excuse to sue either out to make money, to cause problems for people or a combo of both.

I know that I don't want to work with anyone like that woman. In a social aspect away from work, she would be given a wide berth. I wouldn't have much to do with her at work until I had to in order to do my job. I wonder what kind of atmosphere is at that station now after what has happened?
 
Lilac said:
@George1959 & @hollydolly, I agree with both of you that I wouldn't sure over something like this or similar. IMO, there are many people out there who look for an excuse to sue either out to make money, to cause problems for people or a combo of both.

I know that I don't want to work with anyone like that woman. In a social aspect away from work, she would be given a wide berth. I wouldn't have much to do with her at work until I had to in order to do my job. I wonder what kind of atmosphere is at that station now after what has happened?
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree, Lilac ... your thinking is my thinking too.....
 
The problem with this kind of forum is this.................................................The details make a difference in any case or issue. There is no generality in similar circumstances. The specifics matter.
Please listen to what I am saying. There is no, repeat NO, solution to your particular problem based only, on your understanding. That is not meant to discourge you, just to encourage you to be more specific.
Moan and complain all you want but after you're exhausted and you just come to the conclusion that no one cares.....realize that YOU need to address the issue differently.............................and to be frank, ................................stop feeling sorry for yourself!
People do care, they are there as soon as you contact them, provided that you......... you, are accepting the responsibility of what needs to be done.
 
VaughanJB said:
I've never claimed anything contrary to this. You may have assumed it, or insinuated it, but I've never expressed it. In fact, I have acknowledged the ongoing review (precedent etc.) that takes place.

And what, exactly, if your point about possible abuse in terms of the acknowledged processes?



So I have acknowledged it by referring to the process?!?!?! I have said, more than once, that badly drawn laws exist, and that laws change over time. What is the problem?



Forgive me for asking for your solution/s. A law, poorly drafted, can be changed. I have acknowledged this. The process includes the review, and precedent setting. What is your point? You don't like the process, or what?!? I have also noted that despite what you might read from "journalists", too much information is missing, and that making a decision on validity if unwise without the full set of data.,




Honestly, sincerely, at this point I have no idea what your point is.

Governments define, debate, and lass laws. Laws are questioned, via due process. When they need changing, they're changed.

Again, what is the point you're making? You're upset those laws are passed in the first place? If so, since lawmakers are not lawyers, how would you change it? What is your alternative?

Given my link, do you think "No Freedom of Speech Anymore" in the US?
Click to expand...

The problem isn’t that you haven’t acknowledged the process. You’ve repeated the existence of the process many times. What you haven’t addressed is its limitations. Saying “laws can be changed, precedent exists, review happens” doesn’t answer the concern, it actually proves it. Those mechanisms only exist because mistakes, overreach, and disproportionate applications occur. That’s the part you keep avoiding.

My point has never been to abolish laws or design a perfect system. My point is this, if a government has the power to criminalize or police expression, even through a democratic process, that power can still be misused in individual cases, and it has been. The fact that courts sometimes correct those cases later doesn’t erase the original misuse.

You keep asking for an “alternative,” as if acknowledging misuse obligates me to invent a new constitutional model. It doesn’t. It simply requires you to recognize that documented misapplications of the law contradict your claim that the system operates strictly on neutral enforcement rather than discretionary interpretation.

You say you don’t understand my point. Here it is in one sentence: A lawful process does not automatically prevent unlawful outcomes, the process is reactive, not protective. That is why the examples matter. They show what you keep denying even within a democratic process, speech can be over-policed, misapplied, or punished before the courts correct it later, if they ever do.

Your reply keeps circling back to “but that’s how laws work.” Yes, and sometimes how laws work is part of the issue.
 
VaughanJB said:
This sentence is, in my view, a contradiction.



No. They show application, and investigations, based on the law as understood at the time. Better yet - as understood by a tabloid mindset (which is a very low standard).



That's very reductionist. I have given examples, in both the UK and US, where speech is specifically noted. You seem to not appreciate/understand context.



No. The question is, have people been prosecuted unfairly? I have no idea why you assume my posts don't consider the possibility of laws being poorly written, or applied. I have given examples where this is the case, albeit I have addressed the process which resolves it.

What is your solution? Who, do you think, defined what slander is? How about defamation? How were these standards arrived at? And since you seem to not like how it was achieved, what should have happened>?
Click to expand...

The contradiction isn’t in my sentence, it’s in the way you keep reframing the issue. You acknowledge that laws change and that processes exist, but you keep avoiding the question of how those powers are used in practice. That’s the gap you haven’t addressed. You keep repeating that the cases I mentioned are just “applications based on the law as understood at the time.” That is exactly the concern. If “the law as understood at the time” allows police to question, arrest, or record people for opinions, that’s a problem in itself, regardless of whether later review corrects it. Saying journalists sensationalized it doesn’t make the underlying events disappear.

You also accuse me of being “reductionist,” but the distinction between regulating actions and regulating speech isn’t a reduction, it’s the whole point. Criminalizing conduct is fundamentally different from criminalizing expression, and treating those two things as interchangeable is what flattens the context, not my argument.

You keep trying to pivot to “were people prosecuted unfairly?” as though that reframing resolves the issue. The concern isn’t only unfair prosecutions, it’s the fact that speech laws have already been used in ways that go well beyond threats, incitement, or targeted harassment. Those cases show the potential for overreach, and denying that they happened just avoids the substance of the discussion.

You ask what my solution is. The first step is simply acknowledging the reality of those applications instead of insisting they were fine because a process existed. Pretending the process itself is the safeguard ignores the documented cases showing that the process sometimes participates in the problem before courts correct it later, if they ever do.

So no, I don’t need to redesign the entire legal system to raise the concern. The point is that the examples already show exactly why people worry about the scope of speech policing, not because the system lacks a process, but because the process isn’t preventing the kind of overreach you keep insisting doesn’t exist.
 
Antoli said:
The contradiction isn’t in my sentence, it’s in the way you keep reframing the issue. You acknowledge that laws change and that processes exist, but you keep avoiding the question of how those powers are used in practice. That’s the gap you haven’t addressed. You keep repeating that the cases I mentioned are just “applications based on the law as understood at the time.” That is exactly the concern. If “the law as understood at the time” allows police to question, arrest, or record people for opinions, that’s a problem in itself, regardless of whether later review corrects it. Saying journalists sensationalized it doesn’t make the underlying events disappear.

You also accuse me of being “reductionist,” but the distinction between regulating actions and regulating speech isn’t a reduction, it’s the whole point. Criminalizing conduct is fundamentally different from criminalizing expression, and treating those two things as interchangeable is what flattens the context, not my argument.

You keep trying to pivot to “were people prosecuted unfairly?” as though that reframing resolves the issue. The concern isn’t only unfair prosecutions, it’s the fact that speech laws have already been used in ways that go well beyond threats, incitement, or targeted harassment. Those cases show the potential for overreach, and denying that they happened just avoids the substance of the discussion.

You ask what my solution is. The first step is simply acknowledging the reality of those applications instead of insisting they were fine because a process existed. Pretending the process itself is the safeguard ignores the documented cases showing that the process sometimes participates in the problem before courts correct it later, if they ever do.

So no, I don’t need to redesign the entire legal system to raise the concern. The point is that the examples already show exactly why people worry about the scope of speech policing, not because the system lacks a process, but because the process isn’t preventing the kind of overreach you keep insisting doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
well said - I like the cut of ya jib
 
Antoli said:
The problem isn’t that you haven’t acknowledged the process. You’ve repeated the existence of the process many times. What you haven’t addressed is its limitations.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I no longer understand what this discussion is about. You started with statements that we very much against governments passing laws to restrict speech. Now you're okay with it.

You wrote that governments make laws, as though citizens have nothing to do it. Worse, as though governments just wake up one day and write a new law based on a whim.

You claim I fail to discuss the limitations of laws and the process, when I've mentioned precedents and laws failing in court several times.

I have responded to several of the cases presented.

Tell me, would it really have appeased you if I had added "but, of course, we need to ensure there is no overreach"? :D

Or perhaps you'd of been happier if I had discussed the fact that it was once a prosecutable offense to be gay? Or that there was a time when women didn't have the vote? Or the changes in law that now allows people to buy and smoke pot? Society has now decided these "crimes" of the past were not valid and should not stand.
 
Last edited:
These kinds of 'discussions' pop up here every so often, and the pattern usually ends up the same, regardless of subject matter. One person tries to pin down a clear point to talk about, while another keeps shifting the target just enough that nothing ever settles. Before long, people start talking past each other and the thread stops resembling an actual conversation.

This one stopped being productive a few pages back. It’s become more about chasing each other’s framing than exploring the subject itself. When a point looks like it might narrow toward some clarity, it gets broadened again -- almost as if reaching a conclusion would be a problem. After a while it gets a bit repetitive and because of that even more predictable.

And sometimes it even turns into treating disagreement itself as proof of being right, which feels a bit silly and very predictable.
 
VaughanJB said:
Honestly, I no longer understand what this discussion is about. You started with statements that we very much against governments passing laws to restrict speech. Now you're okay with it.

You wrote that governments make laws, as though citizens have nothing to do it. Worse, as though governments just wake up one day and write a new law based on a whim.

You claim I fail to discuss the limitations of laws and the process, when I've mentioned precedents and laws failing in court several times.

I have responded to several of the cases presented.

Tell me, would it really have appeased you if I had added "but, of course, we need to ensure there is no overreach"? :D

Or perhaps you'd of been happier if I had discussed the fact that it was once a prosecutable offense to be gay? Or that there was a time when women didn't have the vote? Or the changes in law that now allows people to buy and smoke pot? Society has now decided these "crimes" of the past were not valid and should not stand.
Click to expand...

You keep trying to shift the discussion to anything except the point that was actually raised. Nobody suggested laws appear "on a whim," and nobody claimed citizens have no role in the process. That’s a straw man you keep returning to because it’s easier than addressing the examples you’ve been given.

The issue isn’t whether a process exists, everyone agrees it does. The issue is that every legal process has limits, and those limits can be and have been crossed. Courts themselves have ruled that certain applications of UK speech laws were unlawful or disproportionate. That’s not theory, that’s precedent.

You keep insisting you’ve "addressed the cases," but repeating that harassment laws exist is not addressing the fact that they were misused in documented instances. That’s the part you continue to avoid. And no, this has nothing to do with historic injustices like criminalizing homosexuality or denying women the vote. Bringing those up doesn’t strengthen your argument, it just shows you’ve run out of ways to defend the specific examples already put on the table.

The question remains: Can a democratic legal system still overreach in how it applies speech laws?
The answer is yes, and the cases listed weren’t hypotheticals. They actually happened.
 
Antoli said:
You keep trying to shift the discussion to anything except the point that was actually raised. Nobody suggested laws appear "on a whim," and nobody claimed citizens have no role in the process. That’s a straw man you keep returning to because it’s easier than addressing the examples you’ve been given.

The issue isn’t whether a process exists, everyone agrees it does. The issue is that every legal process has limits, and those limits can be and have been crossed. Courts themselves have ruled that certain applications of UK speech laws were unlawful or disproportionate. That’s not theory, that’s precedent.

You keep insisting you’ve "addressed the cases," but repeating that harassment laws exist is not addressing the fact that they were misused in documented instances. That’s the part you continue to avoid. And no, this has nothing to do with historic injustices like criminalizing homosexuality or denying women the vote. Bringing those up doesn’t strengthen your argument, it just shows you’ve run out of ways to defend the specific examples already put on the table.

The question remains: Can a democratic legal system still overreach in how it applies speech laws?
The answer is yes, and the cases listed weren’t hypotheticals. They actually happened.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, I'm done doing this dance with you. It's way passed time I did so. It's a completely pointless discussion between the two of us, and honestly we're clearly separated by a common language. I no longer have any idea what you're trying to get me say, and any differences between us have been expressed countless times already. I have addressed your issues, but you refuse to accept it. I can do no more.
 
VaughanJB said:
Sorry man, I'm done doing this dance with you. It's way passed time I did so. It's a completely pointless discussion between the two of us, and honestly we're clearly separated by a common language. I no longer have any idea what you're trying to get me say, and any differences between us have been expressed countless times already. I have addressed your issues, but you refuse to accept it. I can do no more.
Click to expand...

Declaring you’re "done" doesn’t resolve anything. It only confirms you reached the point where you couldn’t keep deflecting. You were never asked for flowery summaries or autobiographical detours, just a direct response to documented cases where the law was misapplied. You avoided that every time.

Saying you "no longer understand the discussion" is convenient, but not credible. The thread hasn’t changed, your willingness to engage with its substance has. But if stepping away is easier than acknowledging what the evidence shows, that’s fine. But don’t pretend the debate reached some natural endpoint. It didn’t. It ended because you stopped having anywhere to hide.
 
Antoli said:
Declaring you’re "done" doesn’t resolve anything. It only confirms you reached the point where you couldn’t keep deflecting.
Click to expand...

Guy, if you want to feel as though you won something, go ahead. There is only so many times one can say "I have addressed every one of your concerns", only to have the claim dismissed because.... wherever the goal post has been moved to..... So yes, take it as a win if it makes you feel good.

If you feel you simply must continue, then let's take it to PM's so everyone else doesn't have to see it. ;)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top