The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear.
Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent.
You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot.
This tendency to obscure context is unfortunately pretty common within discussions about freedom of speech (or the lack thereof) within the UK. I would just like to point out that if your points were so evident, you wouldn't need to remove context to make them.
You may it sound like Coskun threw a Quran into his fireplace and the police kicked his door down and arrested him. You're leaving out that he travelled across the country to burn it outside Turkish consulate in London. The idea that this is "reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam" is you merely repeating punditry.
Likewise, people "being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics" is because they're violating the protective zone around abortion clinics. You can pray all you want but just a little bit over there. You have the entire country to pray for the unborn. Your rights are not being unduly abridged because there's a few 150 meter zones where doing so is considered violating the dignity of others, if not harassing them while they're vulnerable. But of course, this context can be stripped to make a point.
Not to be glib, but yes, that's what Public Order Offences are. Society and law exists so that we can co-exist, and people going out of their way to be offensive and provocative by, say, setting things on fire in a public space and saying hateful things... yeah, that's eminently antisocial. If you want to frame this as criminality coming from mere knowledge, you can do that, but you're obscuring context... you're literally doing the thing. Cringe.
Offense is taken, not given. Unless it's harassment or assault (both forms of violence) then the response to speech should always be either speech in return, or to ignore it, not to use violence - either through the state's monopoly, in this case via the police, or through vigilante action.
To say using one's freedom of conscience and freedom of expression is beyond the childish "cringe", it's illiberal, dogmatic, and authoritarian.
This kind of purist ideology is fine in a perfect world, but the reality is that peaceful co-existence requires intolerance of intolerance. And let's be honest here, you do agree with limiting speech: you just mentioned speech being used as "harassment" and "assault". Would you mind explaining how speech could be harassment and assault and who would decide that? And I'm presuming that you're okay with libel and slander being decided in a Court of Law and enforceable through other institutions of State?
We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line. It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.
> let's be honest here, you do agree with limiting speech
Let's not introduce a straw man: I haven't claimed I'm for unrestricted speech; and let's also not introduce a Nirvana fallacy[0], my position is thus because the world is imperfect, hence freedom of speech is necessary to improve it and as mitigation against its misfortunes and burdens. It actively reduces violence by providing a better way to "win" an argument.
> Would you mind explaining how speech could be harassment and assault and who would decide that?
Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand:
> A person commits an assault if he performs an act (which does not for this purpose include a mere omission to act) by which he intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
Spoken threats are an obvious one, so is shouting at someone in the manner that would lead a reasonable person to feel threatened.
Harassment is also easy to understand:
> The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 indicates that someone’s actions amount to harassment when they make the victim feel distressed, humiliated, threatened or fearful of further violence. The main goal of harassment is to persuade victims either not to do something that they are entitled or required to do or to do something that they are not obliged to do. Actions listed under the Protection from Harassment Act include, but are not limited to:
> phone calls
> letters
> emails
> visits
> stalking
> verbal abuse of any kind, including on social media
> threats
> damage to property
> bodily harm
You can see several types of speech in there.
> And I'm presuming that you're okay with libel and slander being decided in a Court of Law
You're contradicting your earlier straw man now, you have no such presumption. I do, however, support defamation as a civl tort (though not how it is currently instituted in the UK, the US has a much saner implementation).
> We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line.
I'm glad you've caught up.
> It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.
Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people, and you're justifying it. So the argument goes: their offence is justified, their violence is inevitable, hence, we should stop the speech.
Have you considered allowing the speech and punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings? Would that not be peaceful co-existence?
> the reality is that peaceful co-existence requires intolerance of intolerance
Popper defined, in his "paradox of tolerance" two simple tests for telling an intolerant group:
- They shun debate.
- They turn to violence.
You've picked the wrong group to criminalise.
> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
- The Open Society and Its Enemies
> Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand
As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society. Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation. How hate speech in defined in law very much mirrors the definitions of harassment and assault (which you appear to have no issue with): it is not mere offence and intent is necessary.
> you have no such presumption
Don't I? Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.
> Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people
This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence. It's also an extremely American phrase used there to dismiss calls for gun control. I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.
> Have you considered allowing the speech and punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?
Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.
> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
It's interesting that you would quote this because I very much agree: for as long as rational argument is able to counter intolerance, that's all we need, and anything further is not just unnecessary but detrimental. But when rational argument becomes ineffective, as we've seen, then rational argument cannot be solely relied upon. In an age of misinformation and disinformation, the notion of 'just add more speech, that'll solve everything' is not only exceptionally naive but demonstrably ignorant. One need only look at America to see what being the freeze peachiest country gets you. The UK and the rest of Europe have speech restrictions like hate-speech laws because we have intimate knowledge of the devastation of unrestrained hate. Hate cannot be reliably restrained by speech. You may find a case here and there, but it cannot stop a mob.
---
If I may make a comparison here, the murder of the CEO of United Healthcare has seemingly opened many people's eyes to society's tolerance of state-sanction death through delays, denials, and deposals, compared to society's extreme horror at a rich person getting gunned down. And yes, them being rich matters: I'm reminded of the sheer difference in effort there was between finding the doomed Titan submersible and finding the lost workers from the Francis Scott Key Bridge collision and collapse. Notice also Mangione's perp walk: you don't get that kind of display when the gunned-down victim is poor.
What I'm getting at here is that many people in society turn a blind eye to the death and misery caused by the system. He's not able to afford his medicine and died? He should've picked a better healthcare package or changed providers. The system is given infinite grace. But when [allegedly] Mangione shot that CEO, the notion that there may have been any justification for it is out of the question. He is infinitely wrong. It was odd watching news coverage of the shooting and how they tip-toed around trying to talk about this, compared to the typical US brazenness with every other topic.
This is circling back to your "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to, and I'm probably right, but I very much feel like you're doing what I described above, here. It's giving "milkshakes are cement".
> "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to
and
> Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.
Are the same question. His name is Moussa Kadri[0], the person who brandished the weapon (actus reus)in order to physically harm another (mens rea).
The man he attacked, the one whom you would criminalise, what was his mens rea?
> > Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand
Firstly, you've missed the point about that. It being an old law does not necessarily make it a good law (though it is), it means that a) that you should have heard of it, and b) it has a lot of case law, as I pointed out. That's who decides, precedent set by the common people using the common law.
> As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society.
Equivocation, and cowardice I might add, I won't see you banning a whole host of harmful material, like that which was burnt. Regardless, violence against people for exercising freedoms is harmful to society, which is why they're often talked about and pushed to become rights, they're that fundamental. Freedom of speech, expression, conscience and religion are liberal values that distinguish societies with them from those that don't have them, like ones with blasphemy laws.
> Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation.
We "moved on" from blasphemy laws by relentlessly criticising, arguing with, mocking and deriding those who supported them, along with their ideas. Sometimes that speech was free, sometimes it wasn't.
Now, blasphemy laws are back, increasingly, that is the point. We haven't moved on if we're slowly reintroducing them, and regardless of that, freedom of speech protects minorities from attack and dehumanisation. Not only do societies with more freedom of speech have greater safety and opportunity for minorities than those without, freedom of speech is a right that the rich and powerful almost always have, giving it to the poor, weak, or just to any individual gives them strength - the individual being the ultimate minority.
> > you have no such presumption
> Don't I?
Quite obviously not.
> <u>Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.</u>
Arrogance isn't overconfidence, it's not listening, which is why you've repeated the straw man from your previous reply. If a purist is one who supports the laws of assault, harassment, and defamation while not criminalising other forms of speech, then I'm a purist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In fact, I support the burning of a Quran and its printing (even though it contains what you would deem hate speech, if you were to be principled about it).
> > Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people
> This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence.
The US defines the test for this as whether a threat is "credible" and "imminent" (see Brandenburg v. Ohio[1]). Very sensible.
> It's also an extremely American phrase
The logical form of an argument has Americanness? No, logical form can be removed from its original context and reapplied to other matters, as in this case - where does the responsibility lie, the victim, the inanimate object, or the attacker? Watch:
"He burnt a Quran, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?"
"She was on her own at night in a short skirt, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?" You'll find some justification for that in the Quran, so I shouldn't be surprised that you've taken the position you have.
> used there to dismiss calls for gun control.
They have gun control, it's all about where to draw the line ;) The UK government decided to take away the right to arm oneself for self defence, which is allowing them to continue to remove other rights. As Frederick Douglass wrote[2]:
“the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country”
> I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.
Challenging something can tame it. Not challenging it allows it to burn. As an example, due to blasphemy laws[3] and hate speech laws[4] in the Weimar Republic, the anti-semitism coming from the pulpit wasn't able to be challenged, and repression of the speech of national socialists also removed that chance, while affording them fame and access to two-tier justice:
> And while hate speech cases were prosecuted, the vast majority of assaults on Jews weren’t.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and isn't it also ironic that those who would want to institute "hate" speech laws the most, who hide behind them at the first hint of criticism, are the ones actually committing violence. Between knifing someone and burning a book, I know which needs to be criminalised. Why don't you? To quote from [4]:
“Where are your priorities, ladies and gentleman? You're giving away what's most precious in your society and you're giving it away without a fight, and you're even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it.
It was already getting tiresome responding to you, but now that you're comparing harmful speech with the "but what was she wearing", I've about had enough. Let me know when a woman's short skirt leads to the systematic extermination of millions. It seems you have no comprehension that speech can be harmful, until suddenly it is (assault and harassment). Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again, see America). Have a nice day.
> Let me know when a woman's short skirt leads to the systematic extermination of millions
You seem to be unaware of the violence, subjugation and rape that women are experiencing in societies, en masse, where that logical form is prevalent and accepted. Or, you're waving it away because, like all collectivists, the rights of any group are ignored in the "progression" towards utopia. The ends justify the means.
> Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again, see America)
You mean, that place that, since its inception, unlike the rest of the world except for the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ (what could link those, I wonder?) and the Swiss, that has never had a totalitarian or fascist government? The one with among the greatest freedoms on the entire planet?
> Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran
Wasn't just for burning a Quran though? He was doing it whilst shouting Islamophobic abuse outside the Turkish embassy.
"[Judge McGarva] said that burning a religious book, although offensive to some, was not necessarily disorderly, but that other factors (including Islamophobic comments made in police interviews) made it so on this occasion."[0]
> Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics.
I could only find three - two had their charges dropped[1] and one was charged for not leaving a safe zone after being advised[2] (not silently praying.)
> Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween party.
Definitely agree that one would have been better as a warning not to be such a twat rather than arrest and conviction.
> Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes publicly
> Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes between a group on WhatsApp
"offensive" is doing a lot of work there given they were, in the first case, "racially aggravated online social media posts linked to national civil unrest" and, in the second case, just plain racist.
I'm ok with racist content being policed, personally?
You are being incredibly disingenuous and missing out the very important points that ALL of those instances were designed to be provocative and make people feel in fear for their own safety.
e.g. the people being arrested for silent praying (wasn't it just two people?) were breaching specific PSPOs that are specifically designed to provide a safe buffer zone around abortion clinics so that people can receive their health services (i.e. abortion and related services) without fear of being harassed. By stating "silent praying", you make it look as thought they weren't being deliberately provocative in order to make a protest - the exact type of thing that the PSPO is designed to protect against.
Well the point is that we don't want people forcing religious views on a mainly secular society. If people have strong views on abortion, then they should abide by those views themselves, but we don't want them harassing people using legal health services. It's fine to protest about abortion etc, but not in a specific buffer zone which has been set up (via a PSPO) to protect vulnerable people visiting the clinic.
I don't know what you're on about with Halloween costumes - I can't see the relevance. Are there PSPOs designed to prevent scary costumes and has anyone been prosecuted for deliberately flouting the PSPO?
I think if you were sensitive you could still have that conversation. People might very well complain, as is their right, but they’d still allow it if you were sensitive.
The problem is that the Jewish community in the UK is relatively small and vulnerable and there is the tendency for such discussion to turn ugly and affect the lives of all British Jews regardless of their thoughts on Zionism.
We don’t want you burning Korans outside of mosques and we don’t want you throwing paint at people on their way to temple.
I’m not religious but I don’t want either of those situations. There are more effective ways to help those in trouble than starting pub fights.
I kind of agree with you that as a public statement it shouldn't be banned but it's not the burning of the koran, or any book, that should be protected but the where and when of it.
I feel similar to how I feel about fans who taunt opposition fans at football matches.
Some off colour jokes are funny, even when they're in bad taste. They aren't and shouldn't be banned.
You hear a commedian saying them on stage and you'd laugh.
Making those same jokes at a football match though has the potential to cause a riot because people's passions are already raised.
I'm not talking about normal banter[1] related to the game or the teams but the dark stuff that crosses the line. I'm sure you can google it if you want examples.
Where the lines are I'm glad I'm not the one to decide.
Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist. Opposing Zionism is the call to destruction of the entire nation-state, and, therefore, a call to genocide.
(Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone).
> Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist.
No state has a right to exist; people have a right to self-determination, and a state of a particular form, and territorial extent may or may not be an realization of such a right, so even in that minimal framing (which I would say is more the motte Zionists retreat to when challenged than the bailey of the actual substantive meaning of the term in practical use by them), Zionism is a flawed and problematic proposal at best.
Well, if your logic is pretending to be universal, then it should apply to Palestinian Arabs as well. Why they should have the right to their state and Israeli Jews don't? (Or vice versa)
I think there is a big disconnect in this debate, and a lot of it comes from framing and conflicting definitions.
I'll try to describe this from my PoV:
Zionism, to me, is just jewish-flavored nationalism. To me, the question "has Israel (the state) the right to exist" is almost nonsensical; I don't think that Italy, Germany, France or the US have any inherent "right" to exist, and the same would be true for Israel in my view.
The people that a state governs, however, do have an inherent right to fair representation of their interests (in my view), and this is where Israel often falls short.
There are a lot of non-jews living within Israels borders, and Israel (as a state) fails those people regularly (and, arguably, by design: it does not really want to protect interests of citizens that deviate from that jwewish national identity).
So I think questioning "western logic" with "why should Palestine (the state) have more of a right to exist than Israel?" is unhelpful framing that misses the main point ("citizens have a right to have their interests represented").
>There are a lot of non-jews living within Israel's borders, and Israel (as a state) fails those people regularly (and, arguably, by design: it does not really want to protect interests of citizens that deviate from that jwewish national identity).
I dont think this is well supported, or the source of conflict. The state seems to do a fairly good job of providing for citizens within boarders. Arab Israeli citizens have the right to vote in Israeli elections, run for office, and serve in the Knesset. They make up roughly 1.9 million people (about 20% of Israel's population).
You can argue that these people have civic representational differences as minority group, but this is a very different situation than people living Gaza or the west bank, and their representational rights.
I think that is the central question: Can you exert control while avoiding representational responsibility, and how much?
Nation states influence each other all the time. They threaten, sanction, and impose restrictions, especially when in conflict without invoking responsibility.
Now I agree that isnt a very accurate characterization of this situation. It is much more of an occupation. I still dont think that invokes a responsibility of enfranchisement, but it certain invokes some responsibility for the occupier. The US occupied Japan following WWII, but that doesnt mean Japanese became US citizens, but there are moral obligations.
I model the Palestinian situation as a failed occupation where there is no progress towards end of occupation criteria. Neither party want integration, nor are they ready for peaceful coexistence.
I dont think Israel has a responsibility to enfranchise or integrate, but it does have a obligation to provide and maintain an option for coexistence, and perpetually put real effort towards achieving it. That means giving 2nd, 3rd, or 100th chances.
> Do you consider Westbank and/or Gaza a full state independent from Israel?
Whether or not a legally independent state exists with some or all of that territory within its borders, that area is effectively controlled by, and in large part (including all of the West Bank, though the exact administrative details differ in different locations in the WB) under military occupation by, Israel.
> Well, if your logic is pretending to be universal, then it should apply to Palestinian Arabs as well.
It applies to the State of Palestine as much as to the State of Israel, correct.
Of course, while I have heard many arguments for recognition of a State of Palestine with twrritory including some parts of the area bounded by the Mediterranean Sea and the internationally recognized borders of Egypr, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, none of them have been that that State has a “right to exist".
And I haven't, in this discussion, stated a position on whether either Israel-within-some-borders or Palestine-within some-borders are proper realization of the right of self determination of some people living in the area described above. You’ve just assumed a position out of nowhere because I argued that a “right to exist” if the State of Israel is a fundamentally flawed and problematic position, with a reasoning that on its own terms applies equally to the same argument if it were made for the State of Palestine.
FWIW, I think the best realization of the self-determination rights of the people in the region would probably, in the near term at least, involve both a Jewish and a Palestinian Arab State within some borders, a situation to which there are many obstacles, not least of which is Israel’s long (consisting of most of the time since 1968 at least) campaign of genocide against the Palestinian Arab people, callibrated largely to avoid excessive blowback from the West (and particularly the US), with strategies enggaged in to preserve pretexts for continuing and escalating that campaign with reduced resistance, both direct and dippomatic (which includes, among other things, fostering the formation of Islamist network that gree into Hamas to split Palestinian resistance and have a less sympathetic organized opposition during the occupation of Gaza.)
Unfortunately for that meaning of the word — and a few million people stuck in the middle — two completely different groups of racists are both simultaneously coopting it to stir up hatred for their enemies, who are the other group.
> (Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone)
Unfortunately, the "soldier mindset" (as opposed to scout mindset) is dominant in this case, and I fear suggesting why would be rejected because of that very mindset. So no, the freedom is not there in practice.
"You're with us or against us" kind of thing, but only with the most expansive definition of what counts.
Well, the soldier mindset and "us vs them" mindset is deadly, and the history is littered with mountains of corpses of people who subscribed to this world view, as well as millions of their innocent collateral victims.
Hate is deadly and useless. Israel is a nation that is tightly bound and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Israeli. Palestine is a nation and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Palestinians. Zionism is the affirmation of the Israelis to be a nation proper. Palestinian identity is the affirmation of Palestinians to be the nation proper. Both things are OK, even if I will be promptly hated by both groups, I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
> Both things are OK, even if I will be promptly hated by both groups,
Brave, and I respect that position.
Myself, I would prefer to carefully phrase things to not get hated. I likely can't be of any help anyway, but I think the chances go down even further if both broader groups hate me equally and think I'm on the opposite team or can't see what the other lot are doing wrong.
> I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
"Orangeman" is a member of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, named for the Dutch William of Orange who took over the UK at the beshest of parliament to support protestantism. William got the name from the principality of Orange, which is named after the city of Orange, which is in France and named after the Celtic word for foread or temple.
They wear the colour orange, even though the colour is named after the fruit (old English grouped this colour under "red"), the fruit being a corruption somewhere in probably-France of "Norange" (hence modern Spanish "naranja"), and before that Arabic.
Back to Dutch Prince William of Orange: The Dutch for the colour is "oranje"; for the fruit is "sinaasappel", literally "Chinese apple", hence the similar (but I'm told distinct species of) fruit with the English name of "mandarin".
Oranges are technically a kind of berry, unlike strawberries which are not.
The zest of an orange is an important ingredient of the mincemeat used in mince pies, which (despite the name) are generally vegetarian.
That's not the part we have a problem with. It's that there was already people living there before and now they're using this supposed right to exist to wipe out the local population. Ironically they don't believe that Palestine has the right to exist.
Colonialism has always been bad, Israel is clearly no different.
"They" are me, I am a religious Zionist Jew. I believe that Palestine has the right to exist, just like Israel. Israel is the land of our ancestors, which was ruined by Romans and then settled through Arab conquests (Arabian colonialism was a thing). This is fine, this was a long time ago. We were there even longer, but it is not the time to compare.
If Palestinians consider themselves a nation, they are a nation, just as we are. Neither of us should try to destroy each other.
No state has the right to exist, that thought terminating cliche makes no sense legally or philosophically. States are recognised by other states, with no legal rights involved. Also claiming that a call for the end of a state is a call for genocide is ludicrous, if that was the case then every revolution in world history would be a genocide.
That was their voluntary decision supported by the population of both states.
A closer analogy would have been some proposals to dissolve the German state forever after WW2, and get its parts annexed by other states. But that didn't happen.
Not to mention that Nazi Germany was actually doing an actual genocide. But that wasn't sufficient to warrant the same fate for them as a nation.
The latter part definitely did. See Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave) and all the parts of Germany that were ceded to Poland.
And the expulsion of ethnic Germans living in non-German lands across Europe postwar was certainly a form of ethnic cleansing, even if you believe it was justified to remove the justification Germany had for prewar annexations like the Sudetenland.
This meme needs to die. You absolutely can shout fire in a crowded theatre. If there is a fire or some other emergency or you have a reasonable belief that there is a fire or other emergency.
The context of the scenario, the meme if you will, is that there is no fire. You're just shouting it for the fun of it, to see the crush of panicked bodies running just because you willed it. That is why it was used as an example of speech that is harmful.
The context of the scenario is you are a war protestor who's telling people they should resist the draft. Obviously protected political speech, which was outlawed using the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument.
Quite - the nature of the speech has to bear some resemblance to reality. There's people complaining about the crackdown on completely false mis-information that gets shared amongst right-wing circles that ended up causing the Southport riots. Clearly that's hate-speech that is aiming to incite violence and it's only fair that people should be held to account for that.
> However, HMICFRS explicitly found “no conclusive or compelling evidence” that the disorder “was deliberately premeditated and co-ordinated by any specific group or network.” Most offenders were local, often young, and had no ties to extremism. The report also cites the Children’s Commissioner, who similarly concluded that conversations with those arrested “do not support the prevailing narrative… that online misinformation, racism or other right-wing influences were to blame.” Although ‘harmful’ online content may have circulated, the report acknowledges the causal factors were “more complex than were initially evident,” including longstanding social deprivation, loss of trust in policing, and generalised political disaffection.
There are literally dozens of stories of people being jailed in the UK for tweets that are not threats or inciting violence, they're just "grossly offensive". I agree, they are almost all grossly offensive - but if you only allow speech you find acceptable, that's not free speech.
> which the new administration is rightly cracking down on according to you.
I've made no comment on that at all as I don't think it's germain to current the conversation and I have nothing useful to say about it.
I'm not sure which country you're actually talking about but your use of the word "administration" makes me think it's somewhere other than here; we form governments in the UK not administrations.
Pro-palestine events have been going on in public continuously in the UK since the current episode started. There are several today even and you could go to them if you want to, no one is cracking down on that here.
The paraphrase "fire in a crowded theater" is from an American case so of course I used the American government, Trump, cracking down on Palestine supporters.
The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear.
Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent.
You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot.
I’m ok with that.