The never-published High Court order Russell Brand won in 2015: a lifelong gag on his accuser, Sylvie Berki, that bars her even from speaking to the police.
The UK is a great example of what happens when you’ve got zero right to free speech. God knows what we will find out about the Royals when they’re finally kicked out on their ass. It will be horrifying
On the other hand, at least Prince Andrew is facing legal consequences, which is more than the USA can say about Trump.
When anyone can say anything, those who yell loudest will drown out the others. That is definitely a problem. But more fundamentally, while differing opinions are useful on many issues, there are also many questions where one answer is right and another wrong. You cannot have people publicly saying that vaccines cause autism, or that deworming tablets can cure Covid-19. That stuff gets people killed.
Freedom of speech is a complicated thing, and a lot of peope have trouble understanding where the line is, even though it is fairly clear in principle.
Freedom of speech “ends” when that speech is a mechanism by which another crime is committed. It’s not the words that are illegal. It’s what the words bring into action.
If you offer to pay someone to kill your wife, you can’t get off by claiming freedom of speech, because you’re charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
If you lie about the terms of a contract, the crime is fraud, not speech.
If you yell “fire” in a theatre and people are hurt attempting to flee, the crime is inciting panic, not rhe word “fire.”
Ideally, telling an angry mob to march on the capital and “fight like hell” to prevent the certification of an election is fomenting an insurrection, not speech.
Any speech can be construed as a mechanism by which another crime is committed. At that point, it’s just semantics. Some countries hold that there is no absolute right to free speech. Others say there is, but that the speaker may commit other crimes in the process. As long as the result is the same, the distinction seems mostly academic.
The UK is a great example of what happens when you’ve got zero right to free speech. God knows what we will find out about the Royals when they’re finally kicked out on their ass. It will be horrifying
On the other hand, at least Prince Andrew is facing legal consequences, which is more than the USA can say about Trump.
Fuck Russel Brand, lock him up for life.
Nah, the UK is just a shithole.
Also the US is a great example of what happens when there is absolute free speech.
So maybe the problem is letting Epsteinis run countries.
The US’s problem is not free speech, it is that the rich are the only ones free to speak.
When anyone can say anything, those who yell loudest will drown out the others. That is definitely a problem. But more fundamentally, while differing opinions are useful on many issues, there are also many questions where one answer is right and another wrong. You cannot have people publicly saying that vaccines cause autism, or that deworming tablets can cure Covid-19. That stuff gets people killed.
Freedom of speech is a complicated thing, and a lot of peope have trouble understanding where the line is, even though it is fairly clear in principle.
Freedom of speech “ends” when that speech is a mechanism by which another crime is committed. It’s not the words that are illegal. It’s what the words bring into action.
If you offer to pay someone to kill your wife, you can’t get off by claiming freedom of speech, because you’re charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
If you lie about the terms of a contract, the crime is fraud, not speech.
If you yell “fire” in a theatre and people are hurt attempting to flee, the crime is inciting panic, not rhe word “fire.”
Ideally, telling an angry mob to march on the capital and “fight like hell” to prevent the certification of an election is fomenting an insurrection, not speech.
Any speech can be construed as a mechanism by which another crime is committed. At that point, it’s just semantics. Some countries hold that there is no absolute right to free speech. Others say there is, but that the speaker may commit other crimes in the process. As long as the result is the same, the distinction seems mostly academic.
We do have a right to free speech under article 10 of the human rights act - the thing that all the right wing parties are saying we should remove.
No, this is only limited freedom of expression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom
There is no general right to the freedom of speech in the UK.