President Trump

[Dax777]

Your point being that Russia has more free speech than the UK?

Wow. Just wow.

Again!!!!

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

COVID and the ensuing lockdown really fucked with people's heads in a way that will be studied for generations.

People acting like fucking 12 year olds, arguing about who has more freedom. None of you soft cunts know what oppression feels like. Apart maybe that Chinese guy, but I've not seen him post anything for a while.

But I was told it was the awful, terrible, 3rd-world-level suffering of the voiceless majority in the West that has caused the rise of the hard right wing because they have no other options to choose from. Particularly in the US, where there's been no recession in the nation outside of a month or two of COVID in the last 17 years.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It's just as likely that I paraphrased poorly.
It still seems unlikely to be true, and a continuation of the free speech thread being banged on about. I think it's being used to create an impression which is not true.

And these things have happened in political speech forever, which is why it’s good we plebs have the right to speak out about the lies from leadership.

People don’t realize that the powerful will always be able to say whatever they want! It’s us “regular folk” who need to have the freedom to speak truth to power. Therein lies the brilliance of free speech!

Let’s not even attempt to curtail that because of the noise of lies from those that would do us harm.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

But I was told it was the awful, terrible, 3rd-world-level suffering of the voiceless majority in the West that has caused the rise of the hard right wing because they have no other options to choose from. Particularly in the US, where there's been no recession in the nation outside of a month or two of COVID in the last 17 years.

It’s mostly capitalism running out of margins, prices inevitably going up and taxes not being paid by the richest.

That and the rise of social media and its ability to radicalise.

 

[flook]

Good thing we don't have that 3rd term problem :)

yet

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Yes absolutely. Free speech is still alive and well over here. What we can't do, and rightly so, is call someone a nonce on social media, with it's negative connotations and potential harm, without some proof of it being true. That's the point you see, Shitgibbon and Co's proclamations on social media are, for the most part, lies, designed to promote their agenda. That's not free speech. Surely you can see the difference?

Yes, I can. Your libel laws are more liberal than the U.S.

It’s not about allowing free speech, or not, it’s the threshold of where free speech ends and libel begins.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

And they were convicted of hate speech. That’s not ok here and shouldn’t be anywhere. Note that if in the US I call someone a paedophile with no evidence it is likely to be not actionable.

Because in the US the complainant would have to prove they weren’t a paedo.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yes, I can. Your libel laws are more liberal than the U.S.

It’s not about allowing free speech, or not, it’s the threshold of where free speech ends and libel begins.

It’s not talked about in the U.K. as far as I’m aware, outside of Twitterbots trying to make it a thing.

There was about a month of discourse following the riots but that’s died a death now as the Twitterbots follow whatever Musk wants to be the debating point.

It was a Batman scene this week. :-)

 

[Blue Maverick]

Good thing we don't have that 3rd term problem :)

You think this **** is giving up power, only way he leaves is in a box, sooner rather than later.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Come the revolutiom.......

Be careful what you wish for! ;-)

 

[ChicagoBlue]

There is no lack of freedom of expression in uk, other than a block on hate crime in a poorly drafted law.Give examples.

Other than the one you just gave?!

Who defines “hate crime”? Sounds a bit Orwellian in its potentially broad interpretation, which you seem to acknowledge.

 

[bluethrunthru]

 

[ChicagoBlue]

There is a parliament which decides limits.

Ah…a parliament.

Well then, I’m satisfied!

 

[flook]

Free speech laws in the U.S. and the U.K. differ significantly due to their legal frameworks and historical contexts. Here are the key differences:

1. Constitutional Protection vs. Parliamentary Law

U.S.: Free speech is explicitly protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prevents the government from restricting speech, with limited exceptions (e.g., incitement to violence, defamation, and true threats).

U.K.: There is no single constitutional provision guaranteeing free speech. Instead, it is protected under common law, the Human Rights Act 1998, and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, but with broader limitations.


2. Hate Speech Laws

U.S.: Hate speech is generally protected unless it incites imminent violence or includes direct threats.

U.K.: Hate speech is criminalized under laws like the Public Order Act 1986 and the Communications Act 2003, making it illegal to stir up racial, religious, or homophobic hatred.


3. Defamation Laws

U.S.: Plaintiffs in defamation cases, especially public figures, must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth), making lawsuits harder to win.

U.K.: Defamation laws are stricter, and the burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of a statement. The Defamation Act 2013 introduced reforms, but it is still easier to sue for libel in the U.K. than in the U.S.


4. Online Speech and Social Media Regulations

U.S.: Platforms are generally shielded from liability for user-generated content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, though there are debates over reform.

U.K.: The Online Safety Act 2023 introduces stricter regulation on tech companies, requiring them to remove harmful content, including legal but "harmful" speech.


5. Protests and Public Order

U.S.: The right to peaceful assembly is strongly protected, though local governments can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

U.K.: The Public Order Act 1986 and Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 allow authorities to restrict protests based on noise, disruption, or risk of disorder, giving police broader powers than in the U.S.


6. Blasphemy and Religious Speech

U.S.: Blasphemy laws do not exist, and religious criticism is fully protected.

U.K.: The last blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008, but laws against religious hatred (e.g., Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) can still limit certain types of speech.


Conclusion

The U.S. has broader free speech protections due to the First Amendment, while the U.K. places greater emphasis on balancing speech with protections against harm (e.g., hate speech and defamation laws). This makes speech in the U.K. more regulated, particularly in online spaces and public protests.

Pretty much think we've got it right then

 

[ChicagoBlue]

You’ve been warned about her!

She’s a plant!

 

[Bazzmand Show]

Have to hand it to the Russians, for a country with limited military power - they have the US republican party completely under their thumb.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Pretty much think we've got it right then

What could go wrong, then, eh?!

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

There is a parliament which decides limits.

Think it’s indoctrinated in the US that governments can’t be trusted. It’s why they have trillions of guns.

Americans make a big deal out of our supposed oppression, when in reality, we don’t care.

If we did care, we’d campaign to get the government to change the law, like we did after Dunblane etc.

 

[KS55]

Free speech laws in the U.S. and the U.K. differ significantly due to their legal frameworks and historical contexts. Here are the key differences:

1. Constitutional Protection vs. Parliamentary Law

U.S.: Free speech is explicitly protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prevents the government from restricting speech, with limited exceptions (e.g., incitement to violence, defamation, and true threats).

U.K.: There is no single constitutional provision guaranteeing free speech. Instead, it is protected under common law, the Human Rights Act 1998, and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, but with broader limitations.


2. Hate Speech Laws

U.S.: Hate speech is generally protected unless it incites imminent violence or includes direct threats.

U.K.: Hate speech is criminalized under laws like the Public Order Act 1986 and the Communications Act 2003, making it illegal to stir up racial, religious, or homophobic hatred.


3. Defamation Laws

U.S.: Plaintiffs in defamation cases, especially public figures, must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth), making lawsuits harder to win.

U.K.: Defamation laws are stricter, and the burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of a statement. The Defamation Act 2013 introduced reforms, but it is still easier to sue for libel in the U.K. than in the U.S.


4. Online Speech and Social Media Regulations

U.S.: Platforms are generally shielded from liability for user-generated content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, though there are debates over reform.

U.K.: The Online Safety Act 2023 introduces stricter regulation on tech companies, requiring them to remove harmful content, including legal but "harmful" speech.


5. Protests and Public Order

U.S.: The right to peaceful assembly is strongly protected, though local governments can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

U.K.: The Public Order Act 1986 and Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 allow authorities to restrict protests based on noise, disruption, or risk of disorder, giving police broader powers than in the U.S.


6. Blasphemy and Religious Speech

U.S.: Blasphemy laws do not exist, and religious criticism is fully protected.

U.K.: The last blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008, but laws against religious hatred (e.g., Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) can still limit certain types of speech.


Conclusion

The U.S. has broader free speech protections due to the First Amendment, while the U.K. places greater emphasis on balancing speech with protections against harm (e.g., hate speech and defamation laws). This makes speech in the U.K. more regulated, particularly in online spaces and public protests.

A good summary. The balanced approach in the UK is typical of European culture vs American culture. What people in the US fail to appreciate or at least fail to add into the reckoning is that the more you protect speech the more likely you are to allow harm to the object of that speech. A high profile case occurred when a diver saved a youth football team from certain death. He was characterised in the US as a paedofile: “Why else would a British guy live in Thailand.?” said Musk and, because his exploits made him famous, his defamation case failed on the grounds that he was a public figure. This did immense damage to the diver.
Where the UK has erred is in the definition of hate speech. The act makes the object of the speech the arbiter at first instance of whether it is hateful. In other words, if the object feels harm, the speech is prima facie harmful. This reduces the importance of mens rea. It also is responsible for wider police action: if the object reports he feels harm, the police will then interview the speaker.
The police action was typically overblown and resulted in the police recording “non hate speech” which sometimes included jokes. This practice has now been abandoned and police are instructed not to record such incidents. Btw, other changes to English law made arrest for all offences easier than it used to be and this did not help where a force was over keen. Hence the alarming number of arrests for hate speech. It should be noted that the vast majority of cases do not result in a charge. It is quite difficult to make such charges stick.
The nonsense we hear from the US that certain words are banned is just that, nonsense.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Funny that. Many Americans living here say they feel freer here than in US.

I guess everyone’s experience of life is different. Go figure.

Always live a good “point” that starts with “many….” It’s so Trumpian. Many people say he’s a genius, the best President in history, a successful billionaire business man, and that it’s all his own hair and he’s got a natural warm glow about him…or do many people say!

Brilliant…and, as you said, funny!