Britain Tommy Robinson goes to jail for free speech violation

[ShockingButTrue]

Or worse yet, we're adopting the belief that because you can say or do something then there should be no consequences for it. This concerns me, and my concern has nothing to do with the Constitution or laws.

Cheer up. We as a nation just reprimanded a public figure (really, anywhere in public too) for "speaking their mind." Did you not hear about it?

Quit being so hysterical. You'll feel better. I promise you there aren't going to be any concentration camps erected in this nation anytime soon. Further, civil laws legislated by our Republic in 1964, will not, ever, be reversed under any circumstances, Ok? If there's a threat to our democracy, and I agree with you just a little, it's absolutely, positively, not either of those just mentioned.




Who'd thought Russians could pull that many election levers at one time? And thank God California didn't decide the election.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

It's obvious you're reaching pretty far and taking most of everything I say out of context, so I'll be happy to further the discussion with others. Thanks.

[ShockingButTrue]

No, thank you. Really.

You've made it quite easy to counter your insanely outlandish, paranoid, hateful, speculations. People with your ideology should not be making any decisions about what's best for this country. So- now you know why Trump won the presidency. Stop the hate.

Reminiscent of 1930's Germany? Just glad I could help get the ball rolling.

[jdshock]

In fact I said that liberals (ACLU especially) used to back the rights of speech of those that they disagree with (ie Skokie example). Now, they only step in if Sharpton, or NFL players want to kneel for the flag, etc. The ACLU now only support those they agree with.

That's just not true. In the last year or so the ACLU has defended the Charlottesville folks and Milo. Now, they may have to pivot in the coming years because they're receiving so much backlash from a new generation of liberals, but they definitely are still taking cases for people they find reprehensible.

[wufan]

Here's a couple of additional articles about that particular event, one a Washington Post piece and the other a BBC article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.801d09324d7a

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-44287640

The Cliffs Notes version is that while Robinson was doing his live Facebook video, he "chased down several dark skinned men" and asked if they had their prison bags. Then he stood outside the courthouse and shouted facts about child sex trafficking. I can understand the "breaching the peace" charge. He had been arrested for such things before, and had at least one sentence suspended with a warning to not do it again. Ultimately, it was the video and his attempt to report on an ongoing trial that earned the contempt of court conviction.

This relates to British speech laws inasmuch as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater in the US relates to US speech laws.

We agree on nationalism and socialism. Neither one is good. And yes, while the Constitution protects us from the tyranny of a large government, remember that the Constitution also protects us from the tyranny of the majority. Everything in life has to have balance.

I understand the law and I understand why he was arrested. I don’t support what he said. My purpose in posting this was to point out the lack of free speech rights that exist in Britain when compared to the US. Despite the underlying merit that these laws have in protecting the accused, they lead down a bad path, and I believe are a cautionary tale about good intentions.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

The UK (and the rest of Europe) definitely has more exceptions to the doctrine of free speech than the United States--that we can agree on. The reasoning for the additional laws is apparent and, in my opinion, understandable, though I agree with you that isn't the approach the US should take. As you are obviously aware, instead of laws the US system relies on "good" speech to overcome "bad" speech, and it relies on society itself to define what good and bad is. I believe our society is in a period where "bad" speech is gaining momentum. We may find out in the coming months and years how resilient and self-correcting our system is.

[wufan]

We totally agree on these points.

[wufan]

I think the interesting problem in the US around free speech isn’t around government silencing, but around the concept that words can cause actual harm. If this minority opinion catches on, then it is within the rights of the government to step in. This ideology is dangerous, and Canada and Britain are starting to see the repercussions of this ideology.

[Play Angry]

Robinson's issues in the UK, IMO, are a very poor example to use when illustrating the point that the improper curtailment of freedom of speech is perilous.

U.S. history offers a ton of incredibly interesting instances where federal, state and local governments restricted speech to degrees and with repercussions completely unimaginable now, beginning with the Alien and Sedition Acts, continuing through and during the Civil War, WWI and WWII and thereafter. U.S. citizens have enjoyed greater freedom of speech and expression these last few decades than at any point in our country's history without doubt or controversy - if there is a school of thought advocating the position that censorship and punitive restrictions on speech are a relatively new and growing phenomenon instead of one that dominated history up until very recent times both in the U.S. and abroad, then it is misinformed.

The debate on where to draw the line when one freedom encroaches on another is always a good one for debate, though.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

i didn’t say the conservatives have a monopoly. In fact I said that liberals (ACLU especially) used to back the rights of speech of those that they disagree with (ie Skokie example). Now, they only step in if Sharpton, or NFL players want to kneel for the flag, etc. The ACLU now only support those they agree with.

OK, that's fair. I should have been more specific in my response. I didn't mean to imply you said conservatives had a monopoly. I should have something more like, "Conservatives act like they have a monopoly on the protection of free speech rights." My whole post would have made more sense had I said that.

[ShockingButTrue]

You would have come off as less hysterical too. But I understand the lack of restraint. Trump won.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I've never put anyone on a message board ignore list before. You obviously get your jollies from this sort of thing, which is sad but I won't judge. I really do enjoy hearing and understanding other people's viewpoints, finding common ground, and debating should we not agree. It's not as much fun when someone's acting like a child. If I don't answer in the future you'll know I'm not listening. Have a great day, and good luck to you.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I think the interesting problem in the US around free speech isn’t around government silencing, but around the concept that words can cause actual harm. If this minority opinion catches on, then it is within the rights of the government to step in. This ideology is dangerous, and Canada and Britain are starting to see the repercussions of this ideology.

Wait, I'm having trouble understanding this--probably because I'm not that smart.

Are you arguing that words do not actually cause harm? And that the idea that they do is a minority opinion? And that the government should step in if/when society believes words can cause harm because such a belief is dangerous?

[wufan]

Wait, I'm having trouble understanding this--probably because I'm not that smart.

Are you arguing that words do not actually cause harm? And that the idea that they do is a minority opinion? And that the government should step in if/when society believes words can cause harm because such a belief is dangerous?

There is a school of thought that if I say something negative about someone, or some group, then ACTUAL harm as been committed. This harm is believed by some to be to a high enough degree as to be considered emotional abuse. These people believe that such an offense is tantamount to criminal behavior and should be against the law.

The government’s role in free speech is to make sure that speech doesn’t cause physical harm (inciting a riot, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre, perhaps “swatting” an individual), or harm to ones reputation that might cause the loss of income (liable laws). If it is believed that calling someone a jerk causes actual harm, then there is a legitimate call to further restrict speech.

I think this this would be a bad thing.

[wufan]

For more info on the subject, here’s a PBS video worth watching that displays the ideas I oppose:

https://youtu.be/1ESU5ONMMxs

Here’s an article from Psychology Today that agrees:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/tech-support/201308/why-words-can-hurt-least-much-sticks-and-stones

Here’s an article from the Atlantic that makes the counter point that I agree with:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

There is a school of thought that if I say something negative about someone, or some group, then ACTUAL harm as been committed. This harm is believed by some to be to a high enough degree as to be considered emotional abuse. These people believe that such an offense is tantamount to criminal behavior and should be against the law.

The government’s role in free speech is to make sure that speech doesn’t cause physical harm (inciting a riot, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre, perhaps “swatting” an individual), or harm to ones reputation that might cause the loss of income (liable laws). If it is believed that calling someone a jerk causes actual harm, then there is a legitimate call to further restrict speech.

I think this this would be a bad thing.

OK, I see what you're saying.

I don't necessarily agree that particular school of thought is very prominent. I think it gets some disproportionate attention from conservative leaning news organizations, though.

I agree in principle that causing emotional harm is not the same as causing physical or economic harm. However, at the same time, I do think some people are going too far and taking advantage of the current conservative ideology. The exercise of rights, in my opinion, also compels you to have respect for others and to take responsibility for the negative impacts of exercising your rights.

Just because you can call someone a jerk doesn't mean you should. Having rights does not give one a license to be an ass. But there are a lot of people in this country right now that do that simply because they have a right to do it, and they don't care how they affect someone else. Some are so obsessed with exercising their rights because of some perceived attack on them that they are doing so at the expense of our moral fiber. I do not agree with those on the left who feel it's government's responsibility to step in and stop the offending speech, but I do feel it's society's.

[wufan]

OK, I see what you're saying.

I don't necessarily agree that particular school of thought is very prominent. I think it gets some disproportionate attention from conservative leaning news organizations, though.

I agree in principle that causing emotional harm is not the same as causing physical or economic harm. However, at the same time, I do think some people are going too far and taking advantage of the current conservative ideology. The exercise of rights, in my opinion, also compels you to have respect for others and to take responsibility for the negative impacts of exercising your rights.

Just because you can call someone a jerk doesn't mean you should. Having rights does not give one a license to be an ass. But there are a lot of people in this country right now that do that simply because they have a right to do it, and they don't care how they affect someone else. Some are so obsessed with exercising their rights because of some perceived attack on them that they are doing so at the expense of our moral fiber. I do not agree with those on the left who feel it's government's responsibility to step in and stop the offending speech, but I do feel it's society's.

While the “hate speech” crowd is a minority’s, it has surprisingly large support in this country. 30% (roughly) feel that hate speech should be a crime.

I totally agree that that just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Roseanne Barr saw the consequences of that. Samantha Bee did not. I’m totally okay with companies choosing to act in these ways freely.

[ShockingButTrue]

Just because you can call someone a jerk (or bigot, or homophobe, etc, etc,) doesn't mean you should. Having rights does not give one a license to be an ass. But there are a lot of people in this country right now that do that simply because they have a right to do it, and they don't care how they affect someone else. Some are so obsessed with exercising their rights because of some perceived attack on them that they are doing so at the expense of our moral fiber.

Can you believe it? We "sorta" (accidentally) agree! Glad to see you came full circle back to the topic. How's that for Progress?

What you've expressed is why Trump won! And might again in 2020. Now you know...

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

While the “hate speech” crowd is a minority’s, it has surprisingly large support in this country. 30% (roughly) feel that hate speech should be a crime.

I totally agree that that just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Roseanne Barr saw the consequences of that. Samantha Bee did not. I’m totally okay with companies choosing to act in these ways freely.

You intrigued me, so I did some research. Check out this article from the Atlantic (it is slightly left leaning but overall a reputable source of factual info: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/a-sneak-peek-at-new-survey-data-on-free-speech/542028/

The survey it's reporting on says 40% of Americans said government should prevent people from engaging in hate speech, so somewhat higher than your source.
A majority of Americans believe society can prohibit hate speech but still protect free speech.
51% of Latinos think it should be illegal to say disrespectful things about police. 38% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans agree.
72% (wow) of Republicans believe it should be illegal to to burn the American flag. 46% of Democrats agree.
68% of all Americans believe it is not morally acceptable to punch a Nazi (kind of a funny question). 65% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats agree.
Large majorities all agree a big problem in the country is political correctness.
Large majorities across the political and racial spectrum agree that colleges don't do enough to teach young people about free speech.

This is some fascinating stuff, but I get from it some key points. First, all of us agree more than we disagree. Second, society actually does a pretty good job of policing its own speech and on the most part trusts it to do so. Each political side has free speech that it wants banned (I was surprised at how many Republicans wanted to make flag burning illegal).

It is difficult to compare the Roseanne Barr/Samantha Bee situations. Both were absolutely stupid and ridiculous comments. One was racially charged, the other was childish name calling. However, saying Samantha Bee did not see any consequences is inaccurate. She has not received the same consequences as Roseanne. The debate is whether Roseanne's consequences were too much and Bee's too little.

[wufan]

You intrigued me, so I did some research. Check out this article from the Atlantic (it is slightly left leaning but overall a reputable source of factual info: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/a-sneak-peek-at-new-survey-data-on-free-speech/542028/

The survey it's reporting on says 40% of Americans said government should prevent people from engaging in hate speech, so somewhat higher than your source.
A majority of Americans believe society can prohibit hate speech but still protect free speech.
51% of Latinos think it should be illegal to say disrespectful things about police. 38% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans agree.
72% (wow) of Republicans believe it should be illegal to to burn the American flag. 46% of Democrats agree.
68% of all Americans believe it is not morally acceptable to punch a Nazi (kind of a funny question). 65% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats agree.
Large majorities all agree a big problem in the country is political correctness.
Large majorities across the political and racial spectrum agree that colleges don't do enough to teach young people about free speech.

This is some fascinating stuff, but I get from it some key points. First, all of us agree more than we disagree. Second, society actually does a pretty good job of policing its own speech and on the most part trusts it to do so. Each political side has free speech that it wants banned (I was surprised at how many Republicans wanted to make flag burning illegal).

It is difficult to compare the Roseanne Barr/Samantha Bee situations. Both were absolutely stupid and ridiculous comments. One was racially charged, the other was childish name calling. However, saying Samantha Bee did not see any consequences is inaccurate. She has not received the same consequences as Roseanne. The debate is whether Roseanne's consequences were too much and Bee's too little.

I had previously seen that survey you posted (either from the Atlantic or another source). I couldn’t remember the numbers, so I estimated, knowing it was a significant amount but no where near 50/50.

I agree with your post entirely, especially where you said, “First, all of us agree more than we disagree.” Despite the feeling that we are further divided than ever before, we are far more alike than we are different.