What are the limitations on freedom of speech in England?
Reuters Friday July 28, 12:21 PM
LONDON (Reuters) - A woman has been ordered by police to take down a sign on her garden gate which read “Our dogs are fed on Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Pensioner Janet Grove, who owns a Jack Terrier puppy called Rabbit, insisted the sign was a gentle joke to discourage callers at her front door.
Her late husband put the sign up more than 30 years ago when members of the church called at their house on Christmas Day.
But police were forced to act after receiving a complaint.
“We were informed by a member of the public who found the sign to be distressing, offensive and inappropriate,” a police spokesman said. “Officers attended the address and the sign was voluntarily taken down.”
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
What are the limitations on freedom of speech in England?
Reuters Friday July 28, 12:21 PM
LONDON (Reuters) - A woman has been ordered by police to take down a sign on her garden gate which read “Our dogs are fed on Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Pensioner Janet Grove, who owns a Jack Terrier puppy called Rabbit, insisted the sign was a gentle joke to discourage callers at her front door.
Her late husband put the sign up more than 30 years ago when members of the church called at their house on Christmas Day.
But police were forced to act after receiving a complaint.
“We were informed by a member of the public who found the sign to be distressing, offensive and inappropriate,” a police spokesman said. “Officers attended the address and the sign was voluntarily taken down.”[/quote]
I think that comes under the ‘incitement to racial or religious hatred’ act thingy.
I guess Jehovah’s Witnesses would find it as offensive as if a couple of black people saw the sign which read ‘our dogs are fed on n****rs’.
On a general level, I don’t think suppression of free speech is as much of an issue here as it is in the US, although in times of war things are naturally a little more touchy.
Over here you can say what you want and if we don’t like it, we ignore you. If we think it extremely offensive you might earn yourself a stern look. If you cross THAT line (in certain parts of the country) you’re likely to get glassed.
Did everyone miss “the sign was voluntarily taken down?”
My take on it is that the couple put the sign there as a joke. When they were informed that it offended some people, they simply took it down. Impact on their life: zero.
You don’t have to make a battle of every little thing that happens in everyday life.
I guess Jehovah’s Witnesses would find it as offensive as if a couple of black people saw the sign which read ‘our dogs are fed on n****rs’.
[/quote]
While I would agree that folks get upset over trivial matters more often than they should, I’m not sure I’d compare the two situations above as being equal.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Did everyone miss “the sign was voluntarily taken down?”
My take on it is that the couple put the sign there as a joke. When they were informed that it offended some people, they simply took it down. Impact on their life: zero.
You don’t have to make a battle of every little thing that happens in everyday life.
[/quote]
Nor should someone passing by on the street take it so seriously that they feel the need to call the authorities.
Impact on their life: zero, yet they felt the need to run and tattle.
Why must people live their lives with feelings so obviously perched on their sleeves?
What about Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in England? A council can decide that something you are doing, though legal, is “anti-social” and order you to do something else… and then throw you in jail if you disobey the order.
How is that law coming to install RFID chips in all cars so that citizens can be tracked on all public roadways?
Enjoying all the cameras in London watching your every move?
Say what you will… England isn’t exactly setting itself up to be a frontrunner in civil liberties anytime soon.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
What about Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in England? A council can decide that something you are doing, though legal, is “anti-social” and order you to do something else… and then throw you in jail if you disobey the order.
How is that law coming to install RFID chips in all cars so that citizens can be tracked on all public roadways?
Enjoying all the cameras in London watching your every move?
Say what you will… England isn’t exactly setting itself up to be a frontrunner in civil liberties anytime soon.[/quote]
The ASBOs (as they are known)are mostly used against young out-of-control kids drinking and vandalising and intimidating people on the proverbial street corners etc. ASBO kids tend to be a lovely part of British subculture which are influenced by US gang culture combined with British football hooligan culture. A lovely and charming mix. Essentially fake Burberry-clad glue sniffing scum.
The cameras are WAY out of control - but mostly they are there to fine you for something. Purely a profit making enterprise as opposed to a crime-solving one. As I discovered when I was mugged once directly underneath two cameras.
I’ve already signed up against the introduction of ID cards with biometric information. Awful idea, which at some point I’m sure, thanks to our lovely beaurocracy will result in me being accused of murders committed before I was even born.
Big Brother IS watching us in the UK. But we can say what we want.
My thoughts were always if you speak out of turn in the US you are branded as unpatriotic but if you do it here the government just ploughs on with whatever they want to do regardless. SO we have free speech but it’s essentially not worth too much. Can’t win either way.
I defer to anyone who has actually studied UK law, but it’s my understanding that British free speech protections are much less strong than those in the U.S., mostly because ours are laid out specifically in the 1st Amendment of our written constitution.
I’ve generally heard of a lot of laws in Britain that wouldn’t pass 1st Amendment muster over here – even their libel laws would likely run afoul, at least partially, of our 1st Amendment rights (assuming the libel laws were properly explained to me).
My thoughts were always if you speak out of turn in the US you are branded as unpatriotic but if you do it here the government just ploughs on with whatever they want to do regardless. SO we have free speech but it’s essentially not worth too much. Can’t win either way.[/quote]
That’s a terrible reading of what happens in the US. Sure, if you walked into a village square in Georgia with a sign saying “Bush=Terrorist” you would probably get some dirty looks and middle fingers and maybe someone in their car would cuss at your stupidity. This is not the same at all as the police showing up and forcefully locking your ass up because the local magistrate has decided your sign is “offensive”. (Conversely, there are lots of places where you could go and you’d get all sorts of applause for the same sign).
There’s an essential difference between someone else exercising their right of free speech by criticizing you and the government curtailing your rights. We are EXTREMELY touchy about freedom of speech here which in my experience is totally alien to most Europeans. Someone best described it to me when I was studying abroad as “Tolerance of different viewpoints(Europe) vs. Freedom of speech(USA). Similar idea but so very very different.”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I defer to anyone who has actually studied UK law, but it’s my understanding that British free speech protections are much less strong than those in the U.S., mostly because ours are laid out specifically in the 1st Amendment of our written constitution.
[/quote]
Aren’t there “hate speech” laws in the UK? If you say the wrong thing about the wrong group of people, you can go to jail or be fined large amounts of money?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I defer to anyone who has actually studied UK law, but it’s my understanding that British free speech protections are much less strong than those in the U.S., mostly because ours are laid out specifically in the 1st Amendment of our written constitution.
nephorm wrote:
Aren’t there “hate speech” laws in the UK? If you say the wrong thing about the wrong group of people, you can go to jail or be fined large amounts of money?
Sorry, I’m still sick, and a bit ornery… [/quote]
Yes, I believe there are – and those would certainly fun afoul of the 1st Amendment in the USA.
My thoughts were always if you speak out of turn in the US you are branded as unpatriotic but if you do it here the government just ploughs on with whatever they want to do regardless. SO we have free speech but it’s essentially not worth too much. Can’t win either way.
That’s a terrible reading of what happens in the US. Sure, if you walked into a village square in Georgia with a sign saying “Bush=Terrorist” you would probably get some dirty looks and middle fingers and maybe someone in their car would cuss at your stupidity. This is not the same at all as the police showing up and forcefully locking your ass up because the local magistrate has decided your sign is “offensive”. (Conversely, there are lots of places where you could go and you’d get all sorts of applause for the same sign).
There’s an essential difference between someone else exercising their right of free speech by criticizing you and the government curtailing your rights. We are EXTREMELY touchy about freedom of speech here which in my experience is totally alien to most Europeans. Someone best described it to me when I was studying abroad as “Tolerance of different viewpoints(Europe) vs. Freedom of speech(USA). Similar idea but so very very different.”[/quote]
Very well put. I stand corrected. I was going more on ‘on the street’ conversation over points of law but your summation sounds pretty spot-on.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I defer to anyone who has actually studied UK law, but it’s my understanding that British free speech protections are much less strong than those in the U.S., mostly because ours are laid out specifically in the 1st Amendment of our written constitution.
Aren’t there “hate speech” laws in the UK? If you say the wrong thing about the wrong group of people, you can go to jail or be fined large amounts of money?
Sorry, I’m still sick, and a bit ornery… [/quote]
Off the back of the Finsbury Park mosque ‘recruitment drives’ there were some changes in the law and a general beefing up of the incitement to racial/religious hatred laws which to my mind can sometimes border on totalitarianism. Over here this recent war has been the excuse to try and push through all sorts of outrageous legislation.
I haven’t studied UK law, just occasionally run foul of it.
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
Very well put. I stand corrected. I was going more on ‘on the street’ conversation over points of law but your summation sounds pretty spot-on.
[/quote]
Not really corrected. If you were to watch most of our news or read our major newspapers the hysterics have gotten to the point where I understand where you’re coming from. A lot of people scream or imply that George Bush is a nazi or the first dictator of the USA. The reaction to these hysterics from other people is often harsh.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
Very well put. I stand corrected. I was going more on ‘on the street’ conversation over points of law but your summation sounds pretty spot-on.
Not really corrected. If you were to watch most of our news or read our major newspapers the hysterics have gotten to the point where I understand where you’re coming from. A lot of people scream or imply that George Bush is a nazi or the first dictator of the USA. The reaction to these hysterics from other people is often harsh.
Free speech is alive and healthy.
[/quote]
Likewise all we hear over here is about the guy and his young son getting kicked out of a mall for wearing a ‘give peace a chance t-shirt’ and similar somewhat sensationalist stories.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
I didn’t miss that. Taking the sign down under threat of governmental action is hardly voluntary.[/quote]
Exactly.
That part is not quite clear from the article posted. Was there really “threat of government action” or did the police simply go and inform the owner of the sign that they’d been receiving complaints about it? It’s starts off with “ordered by police” and ends up with that “voluntarily” part. Which is it? If I’m ordered to do something, I don’t exactly consider my complying voluntary.
Was the owner informed by the police of complaints about the sign and decided to take it down, or was he informed that he had to take it down, else judicial proceedings would begin? There’s a big difference between the two.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
I didn’t miss that. Taking the sign down under threat of governmental action is hardly voluntary.
Exactly.
That part is not quite clear from the article posted. Was there really “threat of government action” or did the police simply go and inform the owner of the sign that they’d been receiving complaints about it? It’s starts off with “ordered by police” and ends up with that “voluntarily” part. Which is it? If I’m ordered to do something, I don’t exactly consider my complying voluntary.
Was the owner informed by the police of complaints about the sign and decided to take it down, or was he informed that he had to take it down, else judicial proceedings would begin? There’s a big difference between the two.
[/quote]
I read it as they took down the sign at the request of the police -
