Freedom of speech...

[Chris152]

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

The broader context to which I'm referring is set out in the Independent article, and relates to the safe zone around the clinic. We cede certain rights for a greater good. It's a social contract.
Your broader context is the rule of law to which we submit under that contract. Without it, we'd all be doing whatever we like.

 

[Blackswanwood]

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'?

Promote means to support or actively encourage according to the Oxford Dictionary. It’s a bit more than just having an idea or thought.

 

[Sideways]

Let's move this thread along please and not get fixated on individual cases that are evidently controversial. You are welcome to take them into new threads in OT2 if anyone wishes to continue the argument.

 

[mudman]

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

Now we are straying into what is legitimate protest.
They have the right to protest, but do they have the right to physically impinge on other's freedom to go about their daily lives?

Just seen @Sideways post above so I'll not comment further on specific cases but what I am trying to point out is that people's eagerness to restrict free speech by implementing draconian laws may seem to be sensible and will stop nasty people saying nasty things but it can very quickly get out of hand as can be seen by @Vulcan's post above. We need to be very careful about cheering on such restrictions and in my view free speech has to be vigorously defended even if it means that some people are going to put some very objectional things out there.

Social media these days has made the dissemination of objectionable and offensive material insanely easy whereas before you had to actively seek it out it is now thrust at you constantly by the algorithms. We need some way of fighting back against this but the knee-jerk reaction of bans and prosecutions is a dangerous road to go down.

 

[mudman]

Promote means to support or actively encourage according to the Oxford Dictionary. It’s a bit more than just having an idea or thought.

Simply stating that you believe something can be considered promotion. A lot of people will take offence at simple statements about religion or gender and decide they have been offended or made to feel unsafe simply because they have been exposed to an idea. Definitions of hate speech are often based on the 'victim's' perception and not common sense and so stating an opinion can be seen as promotion of that idea. All this is limiting to free speech and as I have said before, is a very dangerous road to go down.

 

[Jake]

Now we are straying into what is legitimate protest.
They have the right to protest, but do they have the right to physically impinge on other's freedom to go about their daily lives?

What on earth do you think the Christianicist bloke was doing other than protesting? Protest *is* fundamentally a freedom of expression issue (and freedom of assembly but only if there is more than one protestor involved). Expression does not need to be verbal to be protected (or, equally, limited to protect counterbalancing interests).

Appreciate Sideway's comment, but that left the second video hanging unanswered - there's not much evidence that actually happened digging around, just the mum's word then seized on by the Christian right web. It reminds me very much of the mother who claimed some school was allowing a child to identify as a cat which was complete cobblers but swallowed whole by the rightosphere.

 

[Chris152]

Free speech, no responsibility to truth. (3 minute vid, BBC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c87dg3x1rd0o

 

[Vulcan]

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

No right minded person would ever consider silent prayer as an offence.

 

[Jake]

No right minded person would ever consider silent prayer as an offence.

Let's tell Just Stop Oil they'll be fine doing that on the M25 then.

 

[mudman]

Let's tell Just Stop Oil they'll be fine doing that on the M25 then.

Nobody said it is fine. You seem to have misunderstood what I said above. I believe that everyone has a fundamental right to peaceful protest and to freely express their own personal beliefs and opinions. But, when that protest starts to physically impact on others rights to move freely, listen to others giving lectures or actually causes harm to others, even if passively, then as a society we have the right to stop them.

 

[Jake]

actually causes harm to others, even if passively, then as a society we have the right to stop them.

I agree. Harassment is bad and should be prevented.

 

[sploo]

No right minded person would ever consider silent prayer as an offence.

As Jake's already noted; he wasn't nabbed for silent prayer, he was nabbed for breaching a public spaces protection order (PSPO). It likely wouldn't have mattered what he was (silently) doing in that location (thinking about fairies, playing a game of chess etc) the offence was the repeated breaching of a PSPO.

This is a narrative that seems to be repeated quite frequently at the moment; cries about people being arrested over "free speech"... when in almost all cases there were specific laws that they were breaking.

 

[Sideways]

Just seen @Sideways post above so I'll not comment further on specific cases

And to Jake's point soon after:

By all means use cases to illustrate the issues and I'm happy for you to draw issues to a close. What we should avoid is getting fixated on he said / she said debate and getting the thread stuck on single cases.
The thread was starting to look fractious. Let's make our points, debate them and keep moving along so everyone interested has a chance to be heard.

Thanks all.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I hadn't but I have now. It does provide some useful extra context including that she had posted some other things that contributed to her prosecution but no further detail so it does still appear to be that she was prosecuted for that one posting.
I also hadn't seen the entire post that is included in the judgement.

There's quite a bit of detail included in other sources - and it is transparently obvious that she had a specific intent and then tried to "hide" what she'd done - making it 10 times in the eyes of the law - clearly displaying that she *knew* she had transgressed the law - which, again, simply highlights her intent.

Have a look at the video I've linked to below.

I'm aware of the BlackBeltBarrister. Sometimes click-bait and obviously milking YouTube for income - which he didn't do in the early days - and he was far better for it.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I don't agree this shows her counsel advising her to plead guilty, only that he agreed that this was a very serious charge.

My opinion is that you are "reaching" with that line of thought.

When the judge remarked:

"...counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence."

...logic would dictate that the lawyer concerned would have actively advised her to NOT plead guilty if the evidence against her did not strongly support intent. Intent is notoriously difficult to prove, it requires exceptionally particular evidence. So if the evidence hadn't supported the charge of intent - it is easy to get off on that loophole by just claiming "That was not the intent of my words".

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Yes, but do you really believe that she was actually intending to incite violence?

Yes.

More to the point - she accepted that this was true - since even when the consequences were clearly laid out before her - she still lodged a plea of guilty.

Justice has been served.

 

[Jake]

My opinion is that you are "reaching" with that line of thought.

When the judge remarked:

"...counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence."

...logic would dictate that the lawyer concerned would have actively advised her to NOT plead guilty if the evidence against her did not strongly support intent. Intent is notoriously difficult to prove, it requires exceptionally particular evidence. So if the evidence hadn't supported the charge of intent - it is easy to get off on that loophole by just claiming "That was not the intent of my words".

I think it might go further than that, because the barrister is obligated to put the best possible case forward for her. In circumstances where the barrister is saying she did intend to incite serious violence, I think there there must have been a conversation in which she admitted to her legal team that was the case. If she hadn't, the barrister would have been entitled to say (even if she had pleaded guilty, in mitigation) that she didn't subjectively intend to incite serious violence, even it is accepted in the guilty plea that objectively she had enough intent for the offence (recklessness etc). If she admits actual intent to the legal team they are bound to tell the court that (or decline to act further). Not a criminal law expert in any way, but I can't immediately see how you get to her defence barrister saying that in such an unqualified way otherwise.