GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

[George1959]

In the UK we have free speech. I can't think of anything that I want to say or do that is banned, other than obvious crimes such as theft and murder. But as for being totally free - none of us are.

Arguing that the UK has free speech is utterly ridiculous, as long as people are imprisoned if they say or write something that the government doesn't like. The term "hate speech" is nothing else than condemning people for opinions the government doesn't like.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech and not this: "I can guarantee freedom before speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech". This is attributed to the dictator Idi Amin, but I don't know if he had said this. However it seems, that this is your and January's definition of freedom of speech.

 

[Antoli]

So, we're willing to accept a restriction on free speech. Only not if a governmental agency does it. Which is interesting in that we spend so much more time every time dealing with corporate entities, more so than we do government environments.

My point isn't that we should be able to discuss politics here (which I hope was obvious) but rather that we readily incorporate context. For me, society is another context. A lot of what is "said" today is under the guise of an internet avatar. People write things online that they never would say IRL. Being held accountable for what they write, for doing things that could cause issues IRL, isn't too far, is it?

We are, in the west, free. We're free to do as we please, to think as we please, to say what we want. But only within a set of societal standards codified by our laws and regulations. For example, you are free to drive a car. However, only if you have a license, and insurance. Otherwise, you'll be held to account. You are free to argument with your neighbor, but hit him over the head with a bat means you'll be held accountable..

Online has taken a long time to even begin to sync with the real world. For example, in the UK, a recently enacted law prohibits under 18 year olds accessing pornographic sites. In Australia, they are banning children younger than 16 from having Social Media accounts.

The difference is, the internet loves an uproar. Hating is so much more prevalent than congratulating. There is a group of people who call themselves "auditors", who spend their time antagonizing officials. Their thinking is that they're just expressing free speech or freedom of movement, so if anyone complains, they're the enemy. For me they're just idiotic attention seekers.

In the UK we have free speech. I can't think of anything that I want to say or do that is banned, other than obvious crimes such as theft and murder. But as for being totally free - none of us are.

You’re missing the distinction I actually made. A private forum can set whatever rules it wants, that’s not a "restriction on free speech," it’s simply property rights. Free speech limitations apply only when the government is the one doing the restricting. That’s Civics 101.

When you call a voluntary forum rule a "restriction on free speech," you’re stretching the term so far it stops meaning anything. If a restaurant has a "no shouting" rule, that isn’t authoritarianism, it's just the owner deciding how his own space is run.

Your broader point about society having norms is fine, but it has nothing to do with the legal concept of free speech. People can face social consequences, sure but that’s not the same thing as government power, which is the only thing with the force of law, courts, and punishment behind it.

You say you "can’t think of anything" you want to say that’s banned in the UK. That’s great, but irrelevant. Free speech protects the speech you hate, not just the speech you personally don’t mind. And the existence of laws that criminalize speech, however narrowly, is precisely why some of us insist on drawing a bright line between government authority and private rules.

So no, recognizing a forum owner’s right to run his/her property isn’t “accepting a restriction on free speech.” It’s recognizing the difference between a moderator deleting a post and a government prosecuting someone. Society may have standards, but only one of those has the power to arrest you. And that’s the one that matters.

 

[George1959]

No one has a right to take away anyone's freedom like you keep repeating, to be done in the name of safety. Once you negotiate to have safety over your freedom, you no longer have either.

Freedom isn't something to be negotiated away. It's the foundation that our lives are built on. It is a reality that surrounds us for those who realize how precious freedom is & how quickly it can be robbed from us.

Laws are in place to protect those freedoms, not to restrict it.

We agree to disagree because this discussion is just going around in the same circle.

Exactly these quotations are well known in Germany in our language too. They are utterly fundamental.

 

[VaughanJB]

Arguing that the UK has free speech is utterly ridiculous, as long as people are imprisoned if they say or write something that the government doesn't like. The term "hate speech" is nothing else than condemning people for opinions the government doesn't like.

Can you give an example of someone being imprisoned for something the government doesn't like, but the citizens are okay with?

Take, as an example, Tommy Robinson (who for some reason doesn't go with his real name, Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. The guy is reprehensible. He spends his time inciting hatred against minorities. He has harassed journalists. He has exhibited contempt of court. His words resulted in the targeting of individuals. If possible, would you have arrested Charles Manson before any incident he incited his followers to enact?

See, the main point here is - believe it or not, it's not simply the government deciding what can and cannot be said. It's society. People like me. He's trying to incite people to commit crimes. He was a member of the BNP for goodness sakes.

Do you have someone else in mind?

 

[George1959]

You’re missing the distinction I actually made. A private forum can set whatever rules it wants, that’s not a "restriction on free speech," it’s simply property rights. Free speech limitations apply only when the government is the one doing the restricting. That’s Civics 101.

When you call a voluntary forum rule a "restriction on free speech," you’re stretching the term so far it stops meaning anything. If a restaurant has a "no shouting" rule, that isn’t authoritarianism, it's just the owner deciding how his own space is run.

Your broader point about society having norms is fine, but it has nothing to do with the legal concept of free speech. People can face social consequences, sure but that’s not the same thing as government power, which is the only thing with the force of law, courts, and punishment behind it.

You say you "can’t think of anything" you want to say that’s banned in the UK. That’s great, but irrelevant. Free speech protects the speech you hate, not just the speech you personally don’t mind. And the existence of laws that criminalize speech, however narrowly, is precisely why some of us insist on drawing a bright line between government authority and private rules.

So no, recognizing a forum owner’s right to run his/her property isn’t “accepting a restriction on free speech.” It’s recognizing the difference between a moderator deleting a post and a government prosecuting someone. Society may have standards, but only one of those has the power to arrest you. And that’s the one that matters.

Thank you Anatoli for this comment.

 

[VaughanJB]

You’re missing the distinction I actually made. A private forum can set whatever rules it wants, that’s not a "restriction on free speech," it’s simply property rights. Free speech limitations apply only when the government is the one doing the restricting. That’s Civics 101.

And the government, and our laws, are a refl3ection of the society we have created. The government is an elected body - by the people - who put laws and regulations in place. That is, indeed, Civics 101. We don't like under a dictatorship.

As for forums, I used that as an example, and I didn't mean for it to become a topic for discussion. I support the forum and it's rules. I still believe it represents an example of where we are willing to compromise our freedoms.

Your broader point about society having norms is fine, but it has nothing to do with the legal concept of free speech. People can face social consequences, sure but that’s not the same thing as government power, which is the only thing with the force of law, courts, and punishment behind it.

It has everything to do with it. We elect our officials. We grant them to temporary power. We can get rid of them if we don't like it. Of course, our democratic processes mean at least 40% of the people voting end up with a government they didn't want - but that's the system we're decided works best. As such, 40% may feel disenfranchised, but again, that's simply the price we pay.

You say you "can’t think of anything" you want to say that’s banned in the UK. That’s great, but irrelevant. Free speech protects the speech you hate, not just the speech you personally don’t mind. And the existence of laws that criminalize speech, however narrowly, is precisely why some of us insist on drawing a bright line between government authority and private rules.

No-one, and I mean no-one, has been jailed for speech the government hates. That's a gross simplification. For example, the last time Tommy Robinson was jailed, it was because he ignored an injunction. I suppose, if he doesn't like our laws, he can move elsewhere....

 

[George1959]

Can you give an example of someone being imprisoned for something the government doesn't like, but the citizens are okay with?

Take, as an example, Tommy Robinson (who for some reason doesn't go with his real name, Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. The guy is reprehensible. He spends his time inciting hatred against minorities. He has harassed journalists. He has exhibited contempt of court. His words resulted in the targeting of individuals. If possible, would you have arrested Charles Manson before any incident he incited his followers to enact?

See, the main point here is - believe it or not, it's not simply the government deciding what can and cannot be said. It's society. People like me. He's trying to incite people to commit crimes. He was a member of the BNP for goodness sakes.

Do you have someone else in mind?

Yes. What about this woman?

Woman convicted for silently holding sign outside UK abortion clinic

 

[VaughanJB]

Yes. What about this woman?

Woman convicted for silently holding sign outside UK abortion clinic

There is a law in place that protects those who want to use clinics like this in Scotland. The lady is completely free to protest, hold up signs, and engage with people outside of the safe zone. She chose not to, and was therefore arrested. Simple. Why didn't she simply move outside the designated zone?

 

[MACKTEXAS]

Regarding certain discussions in preceding posts:

The First Amendment only restrains the government, not private citizens, companies, or organizations.

A private company can regulate speech that violates company policy. An employee who is fired for speech which violates that policy can sue their employer, but that will be a civil matter, not a First Amendment case.

Private schools which do not receive federal funding can set their own policies, including control of student expression. By enrolling, a student has given implied or contractural consent to that particular school's policies. In some instances, state laws provide specific protections for student speech in private schools, but those protections are not afforded by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And most certainly, a homeowner can control what goes on in their own home. For example, if the homeowner states that politics cannot be discussed at the Thanksgiving table, they have the right to oust anyone who breaks that rule.

 

[Antoli]

And the government, and our laws, are a refl3ection of the society we have created. The government is an elected body - by the people - who put laws and regulations in place. That is, indeed, Civics 101. We don't like under a dictatorship.

As for forums, I used that as an example, and I didn't mean for it to become a topic for discussion. I support the forum and it's rules. I still believe it represents an example of where we are willing to compromise our freedoms.



It has everything to do with it. We elect our officials. We grant them to temporary power. We can get rid of them if we don't like it. Of course, our democratic processes mean at least 40% of the people voting end up with a government they didn't want - but that's the system we're decided works best. As such, 40% may feel disenfranchised, but again, that's simply the price we pay.



No-one, and I mean no-one, has been jailed for speech the government hates. That's a gross simplification. For example, the last time Tommy Robinson was jailed, it was because he ignored an injunction. I suppose, if he doesn't like our laws, he can move elsewhere....

You’re still blurring categories that absolutely must stay separate. Whether a government is elected doesn’t make its restrictions on speech any less coercive. Democracies can, and historically have, passed bad, overbroad, and abusive laws. "We voted for them" doesn’t magically turn state power into a harmless extension of social norms.

And no, people have been jailed in the UK for speech the government deemed unlawful. Pretending it’s only about injunctions or court-contamination orders ignores the reality of prosecutions for tweets, posts, and comments. You don’t have to like Tommy Robinson to acknowledge that government power is qualitatively different from a forum moderator clicking "delete."


That’s the whole point: private rules are voluntary — government rules are compulsory.
Mix those up, and you end up defending the idea that as long as a majority votes for it, censorship isn’t really censorship. But that’s not how civil liberties work.

 

[ohioboy]

Free speech limitations apply only when the government is the one doing the restricting. That’s Civics 101.

Not so. The free speech provision of the 1st can also bind a private entity depending on the facts.

 

[spectratg]

Not so. The free speech provision of the 1st can also bind a private entity depending on the facts.

Examples?

 

[ohioboy]

Starting with Marsh v. Alabama, subsequent rulings entangled a private action with State action, this doctrine still applies today.

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)​

Decided:January 7, 1945
Argued:December 6, 1945
Decided:January 7, 1946
Annotation
Primary Holding
The First Amendment prohibits a law against distributing religious literature in a company-owned town without receiving permission from the town's management because this is essentially state action.

 

[VaughanJB]

You’re still blurring categories that absolutely must stay separate. Whether a government is elected doesn’t make its restrictions on speech any less coercive. Democracies can, and historically have, passed bad, overbroad, and abusive laws. "We voted for them" doesn’t magically turn state power into a harmless extension of social norms.

I'm not blurring the lines, I'm simply explaining how things work. I have yet to see an example of a UK law being put in place against the will of the people. That is, something specifically the idea and creation of the government, with no other purpose than to satisfy some urge of the governments. Can you give me an example?

Our voting for a party does indeed show support for a government as our leaders. As I've said, in every election, around 40% of the people voting don't get the government they wanted. That's just how the system works.

And no, people have been jailed in the UK for speech the government deemed unlawful. Pretending it’s only about injunctions or court-contamination orders ignores the reality of prosecutions for tweets, posts, and comments. You don’t have to like Tommy Robinson to acknowledge that government power is qualitatively different from a forum moderator clicking "delete."

Then give me an example. I brought up Tommy Robinson, and noted why he was arrested. Same for the lady at the abortion clinic. Presumably you have another example, since both of those are easily explained. So what are they?

As for liking Tommy Robinson - clearly I don't. But he's not prohibited from doing as he pleases, as long as he complies with the law and restrictions put in place due to his ignoring the law. His beliefs are repugnant to me, and I think he represents the most ignorant among us. However, I wouldn't jail him for that.

But if he's told what he can and cannot do, compliance is up to him. If he chooses not to comply, he faces consequences. As we all do.

That’s the whole point: private rules are voluntary — government rules are compulsory.
Mix those up, and you end up defending the idea that as long as a majority votes for it, censorship isn’t really censorship. But that’s not how civil liberties work.

Only you seem to be mixing those up. I have been clear, I used that example only to illustrate we are willing, under certain circumstances, to compromise. It's a simple step to substitute the "private site" for the conditions handed down by a court, and voila!

Put another way - if I steal from Walmart, I may be banned from all Walmart's as part of my punishment. If I then choose to visit a Walmart, whose fault is that? The lady at the Abortion clinic needed only to move outside the safe zone. She didn't. She got arrested. That's simply an example of the law being applied.

 

[VaughanJB]

Who the hell has a vote to condemn socialism? Do these people know the real problems real people are going through right now? Did they really spend time voting on a political philosophy? Is this a Monty Python skit?

 

[January]

That’s exactly the problem: you’re treating your personal comfort with the current limits as if it were a substitute for historical understanding. It isn’t. Every society that slid into censorship started with people who said some version of, “Well, I am happy with the limits as they currently exist." And every one of them made the same mistake: assuming the people in power today will be the same people in power tomorrow, or will interpret the laws the same way.

Being “happy with the limits” doesn’t make them safe. It just means you haven’t felt the consequences yet. That’s not a defense of censorship, it’s an admission that you’re relying on government benevolence instead of structural protection. Free speech protections exist precisely because governments cannot be trusted to decide which opinions are acceptable. You don’t prevent abuse by handing the state more authority, you prevent it by limiting the power that can be abused.

If your position is that Australia is immune to the universal pattern of censorship expanding once it’s granted, then that’s not a historical argument, it’s wishful thinking. The record of human nature, across cultures and centuries, simply does not support your confidence.

No I am treating the comfort and safety of everyone above the absolute right of unlimited free speech.

Not just Australia - other countries have hate speech laws too
and I am perfectly fine wit h that - there are limits to free speech just as there are limits to most other things that affect other people - I don't see the limits to free speech as some slippery slope any more than the limits to any other things

You don't agree - so be it

You have not changed my mind.

 

[Antoli]

No-one, and I mean no-one, has been jailed for speech the government hates.

 

[rbtvgo]

Amazing dialog. Very interesting and informative.I suppose we are blurring the lines on the senior forum. But on the other hand the dialogue has just happen without any guidance. People just responded?? I don't think anyone wants to violate the senior forum rules but I am glad that I can come here and read what is being said. Maybe we need another forum to isolate us from others concerns and interest. Not my call. Just know that what is being said here is extremely interesting. It involves several countries and people, that except for passports, are essentially of like mind. We are so much the same. Isn't it amazing.
Simple fact of free speech is that anyone can say what they want. They can say what they want in a world that provides multiple avenues of access to the entire world. In other words a person can send their words to the entire world. Whether they be fact, fiction, vile, obscene or just the product of a disturbed mind. They have access to a world wide community. Pretty scary when you think about it.

Now the plot thickens. We want our elected officials to govern all this. People who, for the most part have no clue what is going on because they are too interested in getting elected and staying in power. If confronted with questions or issues that they don't understand it quickly becomes a matter of agreeing with their staff telling them which way the constituents lean. In other words "I agree" or "don't agree" is based on what the consultants advise. Then we get the public bu__sh__ telling us what our elected official has decided.

You want to trust someone else to protect you. Make the bad go away? Not going to happen.
Freedom means you decide and act accordingly. Not to change the world, unless you are so inclined, but to protect your family from what you find wrong. Unfortunately we can't shield our children from the world anymore but we can talk to them. We can love them and guide them. The Government is not able to provide the security you are looking for. Only you can protect your children and guide them.

 

[Antoli]

I'm not blurring the lines, I'm simply explaining how things work. I have yet to see an example of a UK law being put in place against the will of the people. That is, something specifically the idea and creation of the government, with no other purpose than to satisfy some urge of the governments. Can you give me an example?

Our voting for a party does indeed show support for a government as our leaders. As I've said, in every election, around 40% of the people voting don't get the government they wanted. That's just how the system works.



Then give me an example. I brought up Tommy Robinson, and noted why he was arrested. Same for the lady at the abortion clinic. Presumably you have another example, since both of those are easily explained. So what are they?

As for liking Tommy Robinson - clearly I don't. But he's not prohibited from doing as he pleases, as long as he complies with the law and restrictions put in place due to his ignoring the law. His beliefs are repugnant to me, and I think he represents the most ignorant among us. However, I wouldn't jail him for that.

But if he's told what he can and cannot do, compliance is up to him. If he chooses not to comply, he faces consequences. As we all do.



Only you seem to be mixing those up. I have been clear, I used that example only to illustrate we are willing, under certain circumstances, to compromise. It's a simple step to substitute the "private site" for the conditions handed down by a court, and voila!

Put another way - if I steal from Walmart, I may be banned from all Walmart's as part of my punishment. If I then choose to visit a Walmart, whose fault is that? The lady at the Abortion clinic needed only to move outside the safe zone. She didn't. She got arrested. That's simply an example of the law being applied.

You keep demanding “examples,” but you’re missing the structure of the argument. The issue isn’t whether you personally approve of each prosecution, the issue is whether the government has the power to criminalize speech at all. That power exists in the UK. It has been used. And once a government has that authority, good intentions stop being a safeguard.

You’re also doing something you deny doing, you’re treating democratic authorization as if it neutralizes coercion. It doesn’t. A law passed by elected officials is still enforced with police, courts, and prisons. Whether 40% or 60% voted for the ruling party doesn’t change the nature of state power or the fact that dissenters can be punished by it.

Your Walmart analogy misses the category distinction entirely. A private store banning someone is not remotely comparable to the state threatening criminal penalties. If Walmart bans you, your freedom of movement, speech, and association remain intact. If the state bans you, you face arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment. One is property rights; the other is coercive state power. They aren’t different “versions” of the same thing, they’re fundamentally different in kind.

And the “safe zone” example doesn’t rescue your point. The government drew a circle on the ground and declared speech on one side of it legal and on the other side illegal, enforced by arrest. That is criminalizing speech. You may agree with the policy, but agreeing with the censorship doesn’t make it cease to be censorship.

You keep asking for an example while simultaneously defending the examples that already exist. That’s the tell. You don’t object to censorship if you approve of the target, which is exactly why civil liberties are defined in terms of limits on government, not in terms of who happens to be in the majority at the moment. Democracies don’t get a magical exemption from the dangers of state power. And that’s the point you’re sidestepping.

 

[Antoli]

No I am treating the comfort and safety of everyone above the absolute right of unlimited free speech.

Not just Australia - other countries have hate speech laws too
and I am perfectly fine wit h that - there are limits to free speech just as there are limits to most other things that affect other people - I don't see the limits to free speech as some slippery slope any more than the limits to any other things

You don't agree - so be it

You have not changed my mind.

You’re still assuming the conclusion you need to prove. You keep repeating that because you personally feel safer with limits, those limits must therefore be harmless. But comfort is not an argument, and "I’m fine with it" is not a historical safeguard.

The issue isn’t whether you feel protected, it’s whether the power you’re endorsing can be misused by whoever comes next. Every country with censorship began by insisting it was only targeting the “bad” speech, the “dangerous” speech, the “harmful” speech, and in every case those definitions expanded once the machinery was in place.

You say you "don’t see a slippery slope." That’s exactly how slippery slopes work: people don’t see them until they’ve already slid down one.
Your comfort with the current laws doesn’t make them stable, doesn’t make them safe, and certainly doesn’t eliminate the risk. It just means you’re willing to trust the state to keep drawing the lines in a way you personally approve of. That’s not a principle, that’s a preference.

I’m not expecting to change your mind. You’ve made it clear you’re choosing reassurance over history. But don’t confuse that for a rebuttal.

 

[againstthegrain]

"my freedom doesn't end where your fear begins"

"freedom is messy, deal with it"

 

[January]

Antoli I am posting what I think - not trying to do a rebuttal or win a debate.

I do not agree with your thoughts on a slippery slope - one could claim that about any law, lets have no restrictions on anything because it could slide into more

I've made it clear I think having restrictions is choosing what is best for everyone, not for me.
as with everything risk vs benifit - IMO hate speech laws are far more benifit than risk

if yo u think otherwise so be it.

I do not.

 

[Antoli]

Antoli I am posting what I think - not trying to do a rebuttal or win a debate.

I do not agree with your thoughts on a slippery slope - one could claim that about any law, lets have no restrictions on anything because it could slide into more

I've made it clear I think having restrictions is choosing what is best for everyone, not for me.
as with everything risk vs benifit - IMO hate speech laws are far more benifit than risk

if yo u think otherwise so be it.

I do not.

I’m not asking you to “win a debate.” I’m pointing out that your position rests on an assumption you haven’t actually defended. You say slippery slopes can apply to any law. That's true, and is exactly why laws that regulate speech deserve a higher standard of scrutiny. They’re uniquely vulnerable to reinterpretation and expansion, because every government in history has been tempted to broaden what counts as “harmful” or “unacceptable.” That isn’t paranoia, it’s political reality.

You also keep framing this as “what’s best for everyone,” but that just sidesteps the core question: Who gets to decide what counts as hate speech tomorrow, when the political winds change? If you trust the current government, that’s fine, but laws don’t stay frozen at the moment you personally agree with them.


You say the benefits outweigh the risks. Maybe. But the risks aren’t imaginary. They’re built into the structure of giving the state power over expression. If you think the benefits justify that trade-off, then spell out why, not just that you “do not agree."


Disagreement is fine. But disagreement isn’t an argument.

 

[Lavinia]

It's vital that people fight this. Our freedoms are gradually being eroded and we must stand up against it. The trouble is that too many people are simply not bothered. The public has more power than they realise, they just need to use it. Shopping is an example. Where we buy our groceries seems unimportant but actually we have a lot of influence.

 

[January]

Who gets to decide what counts as hate speech tomorrow, when the political winds change? If you trust the current government, that’s fine, but laws don’t stay frozen at the moment you personally agree with them.

Maybe the judicary system is entwined with politics in your country - not so here s o as I have pointed out before it is not political

Ive explained why I disagree and why I think the benifit is worth it.

no point going round in circles. You can have last word and consider yourself to have won the argument I was not having.-

I'm out unless anyone has anything new to say

Bye.