Freedom of speech...

[Blackswanwood]

So, I think that shows that the no one actually thought she was inciting violence, but you do so I think you should think about your motivations for that.

I’ve thought about it and am comfortable with my motivations thanks. I think both inciting violence and promoting racial hatred (which may well overlap) should be against the law.

 

[Chris152]

Which of these was he engaged in:

View attachment 195771

Well, at first glance it looks like 4g

 

[Jake]

Not sure, but I think it was 4(g) from a newspaper article suggesting a PC asked him to move on and he responded in a way that indicated he knew what was what but refused to do so. The PC was probably relying on 4(a) to start with.

 

[mudman]

I’ve thought about it and am comfortable with my motivations thanks. I think both inciting violence and promoting racial hatred (which may well overlap) should be against the law.

Two separate things and we shouldn't conflate them. I agree, inciting violence, so long as it is a clear incitement, not expressing an opinion should not be allowed. In fact this is the case in the US that have much higher respect for the right to freedom of speech.

Inciting or promoting racial hatred could be seen as two separate things. Promoting maybe more obvious than incitement but we have to be very, very careful about laws against such things. One man's opinion can easily be another man's hate speech and who is to say which is the more hateful?

 

[Jake]

Two separate things and we shouldn't conflate them. I agree, inciting violence, so long as it is a clear incitement, not expressing an opinion should not be allowed. In fact this is the case in the US that have much higher respect for the right to freedom of speech.

And the reverse face of that coin is that it has much less respect for other competing rights. No human rights are absolute because there are inherent tensions which need to be balanced. The US view on FoE is very extreme, like their view on gun rights.

 

[mudman]

Not sure, but I think it was 4(g) from a newspaper article suggesting a PC asked him to move on and he responded in a way that indicated he knew what was what but refused to do so. The PC was probably relying on 4(a) to start with.

Re-reading that article, it appears to be 4a. I suppose if he'd lied and answered 'Nothing' he'd have got away with it. If he'd stood there with a placard, and was shouting at patients then yes, a prosecution would be called for but just standing silently? If he had previously been cautioned for more overt acts of protest, then observed 'standing provocatively' then again, maybe a prosecution would be justifiable, but even then, is this really justifiable in our supposedly free society?

 

[Chris152]

Re-reading that article, it appears to be 4a. I suppose if he'd lied and answered 'Nothing' he'd have got away with it. If he'd stood there with a placard, and was shouting at patients then yes, a prosecution would be called for but just standing silently? If he had previously been cautioned for more overt acts of protest, then observed 'standing provocatively' then again, maybe a prosecution would be justifiable, but even then, is this really justifiable in our supposedly free society?

Yes. The patients's rights have to be protected from people who would bully and intimidate them, however abruptly or subtly, hence the safe zone.

Freedom comes with responsibility - speaking of a free society makes little sense without the responsibility bit, assuming we're speaking of a decent, civilised society.

eta - speaking of the US and freedom of speech, I've always wondered at how Lady Liberty is apparently so adored by the nation, but little mention of Equality and Fraternity that the French revolution sought to embody. Freedom, but no responsibility. Just a thought.

 

[Ollie78]

Actually, she wasn't convicted of inciting violence but for 'publishing written material that incited racial hatred'.

This sounds like a pretty mad law. Surely the Bible, Quran, Torah and many other publications could be put in that catagory.

 

[Jake]

Re-reading that article, it appears to be 4a. I suppose if he'd lied and answered 'Nothing' he'd have got away with it. If he'd stood there with a placard, and was shouting at patients then yes, a prosecution would be called for but just standing silently? If he had previously been cautioned for more overt acts of protest, then observed 'standing provocatively' then again, maybe a prosecution would be justifiable, but even then, is this really justifiable in our supposedly free society?

I can't find sentencing remarks on this one. It's speculation, but I doubt this happened because he was passing one day and did a little spontaneous prayer. The PC's actions are more likely explained by a pattern of behaviour from him.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Two separate things and we shouldn't conflate them. I agree, inciting violence, so long as it is a clear incitement, not expressing an opinion should not be allowed. In fact this is the case in the US that have much higher respect for the right to freedom of speech.

Inciting or promoting racial hatred could be seen as two separate things. Promoting maybe more obvious than incitement but we have to be very, very careful about laws against such things. One man's opinion can easily be another man's hate speech and who is to say which is the more hateful?

I disagree. Both inciting and promoting racial hatred or violence against anyone should be against the law in my opinion.

 

[Jake]

Yes, here you go:

Adam Smith-Connor, 51, travelled from Southampton on several occasions to ‘silently pray’ outside the BPAS Abortion Clinic in Bournemouth.

He emailed the council before each visit, informing he would be silently praying for his son who was aborted 22 years ago and for the end of abortion in the UK and across the world.

The clinic is subject to a public spaces protection order (PSPO), enforced by BCP Council, in order to protect staff and service users following issues with protests.

On December 13, 2022, Smith-Connor was issued a fixed penalty notice for failing to comply with the PSPO.

Following a trial at Poole Magistrates’ Court in September of this year, district judge Orla Austin found the defendant did breach the order by praying against abortion within the zone and that it would have been perceptible to the public.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24...mouth-abortion-clinic-pspo-appeal-conviction/

So he's a previous offender doing the same thing repeatedly.

 

[Vulcan]

Do we? How do they know what we're thinking?

They check social media.

 

[Chris152]

They check social media.

So they could in theory know what we're writing. We write things so people know what we've chosen to write. That's our decision - writing is one of the ways we attempt to represent our thoughts. If we don't write, speak or whatever, they won't know our thoughts. I've now lost track of wtf the issue is...

ETA - ah yes, I remember - they know what we're thinking because we chose to tell them by writing it down for all to see.

 

[Chris152]

Yes, here you go:

Adam Smith-Connor, 51, travelled from Southampton on several occasions to ‘silently pray’ outside the BPAS Abortion Clinic in Bournemouth.

He emailed the council before each visit, informing he would be silently praying for his son who was aborted 22 years ago and for the end of abortion in the UK and across the world.

The clinic is subject to a public spaces protection order (PSPO), enforced by BCP Council, in order to protect staff and service users following issues with protests.

On December 13, 2022, Smith-Connor was issued a fixed penalty notice for failing to comply with the PSPO.

Following a trial at Poole Magistrates’ Court in September of this year, district judge Orla Austin found the defendant did breach the order by praying against abortion within the zone and that it would have been perceptible to the public.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24...mouth-abortion-clinic-pspo-appeal-conviction/

So he's a previous offender doing the same thing repeatedly.

Quite a far cry from the NR account linked to above (https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/10/thoughtcrime-is-now-a-reality-in-the-u-k/).
Again, they exercised their right to speech, but failed to take responsibility for the truth.

 

[mudman]

I can't find sentencing remarks on this one. It's speculation, but I doubt this happened because he was passing one day and did a little spontaneous prayer. The PC's actions are more likely explained by a pattern of behaviour from him.

I think you are probably right but, in the context of this thread, should silently praying be a prosecutable offence?

 

[Chris152]

I think you are probably right but, in the context of this thread, should silently praying be a prosecutable offence?

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that the broader context is what makes it prosecutable. Out of context, under normal circumstances, no, it should not be an offence.

 

[mudman]

I disagree. Both inciting and promoting racial hatred or violence against anyone should be against the law in my opinion.

Violence yes, but promoting something is just the expression of ideas no matter how distasteful you may find them, and once certain ideas have been made illegal and people get used to the idea of ideas being illegal, then it is easy to extend to other ideas maybe less objectionable or to weaken the test for hate that includes less objectional ideas. How about if someone criticised the traditional dress of a religious group and expressed the opinion that they shouldn't conform to such traditions? At what point would this become 'hate speech'?

 

[mudman]

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that the broader context is what makes it prosecutable. Out of context, under normal circumstances, no, it should not be an offence.

It's the broader context that has allowed the suppression of a man's right to freely engage in a non-violent activity.

 

[Jake]

It's the broader context that has allowed the suppression of a man's right to freely engage in a non-violent activity.

Do you support Just Stop Oil quietly gluing themselves to roads too?

 

[Vulcan]

Violence yes, but promoting something is just the expression of ideas no matter how distasteful you may find them, and once certain ideas have been made illegal and people get used to the idea of ideas being illegal, then it is easy to extend to other ideas maybe less objectionable or to weaken the test for hate that includes less objectional ideas. How about if someone criticised the traditional dress of a religious group and expressed the opinion that they shouldn't conform to such traditions? At what point would this become 'hate speech'?

A classic example perhaps.