X-Terminator
Banned
Errrrrrrr, hi. I'd just like to say.............(gets cut off and thrown in a van with a bag over his head!)
General / Off-Topic Free Speech in UK - discuss
- Thread starter X-Terminator
- Start date
- Status
apparently if you translate anything in google translate into the new English (UK) category it just comes back "Strong and stable" Although I can see just a glimmer of how in Germany of the 30s many people would have just kept their heads down.
Last edited:
There is no right to free speech in England nor anywhere in the UK. Wherever you are you are subject to the slander and libel laws not to mention the hate speech laws. The only exception is MPs in the house of commons. Even there there are things you cannot say. Like call someone a liar.
X-Terminator
Banned
[Source Wiki]
United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[135] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[136][137][138] sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[139][140][141] incitement,[142] incitement to racial hatred,[143] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[142][144][145] glorifying terrorism,[146][147][148] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[149][150] treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[151][152][153][154][155] sedition (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010)),[152] obscenity,[156] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[157] defamation,[158] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[159][160] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[160] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[160][161] time, manner, and place restrictions,[162] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.
UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986).[163] UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords—the then highest court of appeal—revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time. The ruling removed the awkward—and hitherto binding—conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3–2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding. Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to "the jargon of the old Soviet Union."
The Video Recordings Act 2010 requires most video recordings and some video games offered for sale in the United Kingdom to display a classification supplied by the BBFC. There are no set regulations as to what cannot be depicted in order to gain a classification as each scene is considered in the context of the wider intentions of the work; however images that could aid, encourage, or are a result of the committing of a crime, along with sustained and graphic images of torture or sexual abuse are the most likely to be refused. The objectionable material may be cut by the distributor in order to receive a classification, but with some works it may be deemed that no amount of cuts would be able to make the work suitable for classification, effectively banning that title from sale in the country. Cinemas by convention use BBFC classifications, but recordings refused a classification by the BBFC may still be shown in cinemas providing the local authority, from which a cinema must have a licence to operate, will permit them.
Also the The Defamation Act 2013 reverses the chilling effect on freedom of expression current libel law has allowed.
So, basically we can not have much of a say on Terrorism whilst it is errrrrrrrrr Religeous. That's the media screwed then!
- - - Updated - - -
I think Forum Mods must make the words TROLL/TROLLING invisible on this forum. That is my request as the very word is an infringement of UK Law.
United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[135] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[136][137][138] sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[139][140][141] incitement,[142] incitement to racial hatred,[143] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[142][144][145] glorifying terrorism,[146][147][148] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[149][150] treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[151][152][153][154][155] sedition (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010)),[152] obscenity,[156] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[157] defamation,[158] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[159][160] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[160] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[160][161] time, manner, and place restrictions,[162] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.
UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986).[163] UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords—the then highest court of appeal—revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time. The ruling removed the awkward—and hitherto binding—conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3–2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding. Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to "the jargon of the old Soviet Union."
The Video Recordings Act 2010 requires most video recordings and some video games offered for sale in the United Kingdom to display a classification supplied by the BBFC. There are no set regulations as to what cannot be depicted in order to gain a classification as each scene is considered in the context of the wider intentions of the work; however images that could aid, encourage, or are a result of the committing of a crime, along with sustained and graphic images of torture or sexual abuse are the most likely to be refused. The objectionable material may be cut by the distributor in order to receive a classification, but with some works it may be deemed that no amount of cuts would be able to make the work suitable for classification, effectively banning that title from sale in the country. Cinemas by convention use BBFC classifications, but recordings refused a classification by the BBFC may still be shown in cinemas providing the local authority, from which a cinema must have a licence to operate, will permit them.
Also the The Defamation Act 2013 reverses the chilling effect on freedom of expression current libel law has allowed.
So, basically we can not have much of a say on Terrorism whilst it is errrrrrrrrr Religeous. That's the media screwed then!
- - - Updated - - -
I think Forum Mods must make the words TROLL/TROLLING invisible on this forum. That is my request as the very word is an infringement of UK Law.
Last edited:
The end of free speech here in the states will end in gunfire.
If I have to listen to the other side, they get to listen to me.
When that narrative stops, bullets will fly.
Isnt it cool how the second amendment stands up for the first.
Gun control has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with control
We will never be subjects
If I have to listen to the other side, they get to listen to me.
When that narrative stops, bullets will fly.
Isnt it cool how the second amendment stands up for the first.
Gun control has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with control
We will never be subjects
Last edited:
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
That's not up to the mods.
X-Terminator
Banned
Well someone runs this site Jenner and I constantly see those words used as slander and bullying abuse to ruin descent posts. Please forward my suggestion just as other words have been hidden.
Oh really? Which law is that?
X-Terminator
Banned
In France when we see on television images of London where islamic preachers in the streets, call for hatred and destruction of the UK, we believe that the freedom of expression is total in the UK
Last edited:
American style "Free speech" with unlimited hatespeech is a problem anyway. Seems like the press in the UK are pretty much free to make stuff up though.
Free speech also doesn't mean you can write libel or hate speech on a private game company's forum.
Or in your case, it is accetable to slag Off the UK every day on the general election thread, which is borderline anti British racism and one thread we managed to get the community manager to remove the thread due to you and others constantly providing daily anti British abuse .
Freedom of speech you take great advantage of at the expense of non British nationals who moderate the forums and they interoperate not the UK laws of freedom of speech but their own interpretation of Forum rules which in many cases kills freedom of speech.
As an example that was used on the forums, to a say "Speak to the organ grinder not the monkey".
Is defined in the English speaking world as...............
Wanting to talk to the boss not his sidekick.
Organ grinders being the boss, and the monkey being the one who helps him out.
Normally used in a conversation to describe the 'monkey' as someone who's interfering and defending or covering for the 'organ grinder'.
Yet you and others on another thread accused this of racism or an insult, when fact is under UK law it is not, and so when the forum removes the post, then freedom of speech under UK law on a UK forum, run by non British moderators is what kills freedom of speech. But rules are rules and we must obey.
As your from Finland, your laws in 2006, the government started Internet censorship by delivering Finnish ISPs a secret blocking list maintained by Finnish police, so you take great advantage of our freedom of speech and internet laws by expressing yourself on UK forums and do so by expressing your British hatred. Though this is no surprise when you look at Finlands many major problems and one of them is Hate speech, it is the most common form of discrimination in Finland, they just like to say what they think. Finns are most likely to indulge in hate speech on the streets, in parking lots and parks, according to a fresh report produced by the Ministry of Justice. When they aren’t venting in public, individuals who are likely to engage in hate speech do so online which explains your actions on the forums, though this may be not be the fault of the Finns, because we still remember about their history and their allegiance supporting n*z* Germany during WW2 , which is why Finland has major issues today with Racism.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_hate_speech_most_common_form_of_discrimination_in_finland/8717430
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
Freedom of speech is a myth in the UK...the establishment made sure that any discissions and debates on non british people here are instantly shut down as being racist. As in they dont want any discussions about it, stifled everyone and in turn backfired because of brexit...the more they stifled the debates, the more people got fed up with it and they still havent learned and continue to shut down all debates with accusations of racism.
All the while, the hate preachers get full benefits while they preach about how our society is evil and must be wiped out with jihads. These people are seemingly protected because they pull the racism card out the moment anyone disagrees with them. Thats the reality of living in the UK. And its the fault of the nanny state politically correct brigade who get offended at just about everything.
Hark back 20 or 30 years...comedians were blatantly racist, sexist and insulting...and funny as hell. Nowadays, its a dying breed where the biggest laughs come from jokes that make fun of the current pc generations calling it pathetic. Its funny because its the truth...this generation are soft in the head as we say round these parts.
Freedom wise, we like ameriicans now...everything said is scrutinized fer possible offence and actual freedom is just a political byword...true freedom simply does not exist and never did...but people still cling onto the belief it is and call ye racist or ignorant when ye disagree ^
All the while, the hate preachers get full benefits while they preach about how our society is evil and must be wiped out with jihads. These people are seemingly protected because they pull the racism card out the moment anyone disagrees with them. Thats the reality of living in the UK. And its the fault of the nanny state politically correct brigade who get offended at just about everything.
Hark back 20 or 30 years...comedians were blatantly racist, sexist and insulting...and funny as hell. Nowadays, its a dying breed where the biggest laughs come from jokes that make fun of the current pc generations calling it pathetic. Its funny because its the truth...this generation are soft in the head as we say round these parts.
Freedom wise, we like ameriicans now...everything said is scrutinized fer possible offence and actual freedom is just a political byword...true freedom simply does not exist and never did...but people still cling onto the belief it is and call ye racist or ignorant when ye disagree ^
-Ism it and ban it. That is the way of today.
What a truly bizarre rant, personal attack and some weird anti-finland stuff combined into a pretty sad post.
With respect, I disagree. Racist jokes, sexist jokes, homophobic jokes, jokes about disabled etc all target demographics which are marginalized and those jokes actually played a part in that marginalization. It was a form of bullying.
Bullying is not a sign of strength or not being "soft in the head".
Finland ranks 3rd in the World Press Freedom index.
Britain ranks 40th, behind South Africa, Ghana, and Chile.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking#
Last edited:
Let's see...
Ok, the WW-II stuff (again? really?) is not worth commenting on. As for the rest, do take a look where Finland is in the press freedom index, and then check out UK. That there is the true test of freedom of speech where it matters. We dropped from #1 to #3, because our current prime minister is an unprincipled millionaire, who had a hissy fit when Yle (our BBC) was critical of him, and tried his very best to muzzle the broadcaster. The drop was well deserved, but still leaves us in the small group of countries with true press freedom. *ninjad by Fuzzy
The character assassination attempts I'll leave untouched. Think what you will.
Last edited:
X-Terminator
Banned
As you can see from the UK Law above, it is OK for FREEDOM OF SPEECH when used with Religion as this has exception. The problem is that Terrorists using Religion get away with it as even though considered a Minority of Muslims, it would harm their stereotype for narrow-mindedness! That is due to a lack of education and NOT for Political Correction to get involved with. Eventually in one area the demographic of e.g. Muslim vs Christian (not based on colour), does the Policing then balance out the issues or further swing them to restrain the traditional culture? I doubt that as they are the people running the country by this time. Therefore such people get away with shouting abuse to our Police, Military, Government and Monarchy. All of which is illegal and would be jail for those who are not Muslim.
- Status