Jump to content


Photo

Why doesn't Britain have a 1st Amendment?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 nbohr1more

nbohr1more

    Darkmod PR, Wordsmith

  • Development Role
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8176 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:48 PM

If a progressive like Bill Maher went to Britain to warn about the dangers of Theocracy:

 

 

he would be arrested for hate speech.

 

Was there ever a movement\initative to mirror the 1st amendment in the US Constitution?

 

How far fetched would it be to enact one now?

 

Brits always seem very outspoken to me so it's quite paradoxical that they don't protect something

that's so integral to their cultural identity.

 

Pat Condell Video to get me in trouble:

 

 

My favorite zinger:

 

"Somewhere in Britain, a young girl is having her genitals mutilated whilst a police officer whizzes past

in a rainbow colored car to collect his diversity award."

 

It's like the ultra sharp cheddar of sardonic commentary...


Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

http://www.indiedb.c...ds/the-dark-mod

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

#2 stumpy

stumpy

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1688 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:30 AM

there's the bill of rights 1689 most of the laws come from that.

 

or the one from 1688

 

they have the laws for freedom of speech in them.


Edited by stumpy, 06 December 2017 - 12:42 AM.


#3 jaxa

jaxa

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1263 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:27 AM

Same reason why it has an intact royal family. Freedom ain't free.  B) 🇺🇸



#4 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:45 AM

The accusation of "hate speech" must be limited to those characters actually talking of *general* use of violence (and state coercion too :P ).

Opinion crimes are a form of mankind infantilization.

And they're simply a stupid/convenient way to BELIEVE you're "improving" the world with some kind of FALSE respect.

 

So, often, the pseudoprogressive men/women are in fact cryptomoralistic people.


Edited by lowenz, 06 December 2017 - 07:51 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#5 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:53 AM

Same reason why it has an intact royal family. Freedom ain't free.  B)

Just don't make others pay  for your freedom :P

Oh, the frontier between "wicked" and "cunning".....make others WILLINGLY pay for your freedom.

 

How about that kind of freedom? The one conquered using other people willingly enrolled in the cause?


Edited by lowenz, 06 December 2017 - 08:06 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#6 teh_saccade

teh_saccade

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 544 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:22 AM

UK has had a "1st ammendement" since 1689, which covered only freedom of speech for parliamentary officials (not citizens or serfs/proles).

He wouldn't be arrested - due to the havar being construed as a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.

This is part of article 10 of the European convention and guarantee of freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act.

There is ambiguity to the law as there are exceptions that might include threatening, abuse or behaviour that causes harassment or distress, a breach of the peace - such as prohibition of racist speech and related rallies / protests.

This "upgrades" the offense to indecent or gross offense with intent or incitement to cause distress of anxiety, usually used in hate speech against race or religion or towards acts of terrorism.

Believe there was also some treason if it involved the crown (as in state, and monarchy), that may have been abolished by section 72 of justice act 2009, that continued to cover obscenities (often overlooked, unless you push it), indecency causing corruption of public morals and outrage of public decency. Especially if it is not a first offence (eg, Abu Hamza's hate speech vs English, which was tolerated for a long time before he was nicked or C18 rallies, which usually turn into brawls with people rrested for violence and additionally charged with hate speech).

While UK may have the strictest laws on defamation - prosecution requires an exceptionally high burden of proof.

The guy in the video, as he is "teaching" does not fall under this category, due to the Education (no.2) act 1986 of UK defamation law.

Video Recordings Act 2010 only requires that it contain BBFC (censorship) certificate.

We still allow Family Guy and Southpark to play uncensored with its anti-Semitic and "hate-crime" jokes and stereotypes.

Defamation Act 2013 was the reformation of such act. Do not believe it changes much except for the right to protection of reputation.


I hear plenty of racism and hate-speech in my town (of 11,000 people with ... 3 black guys, 4 chinese, 2 Turkish, a few Russians and a dozen Indian and Pakistanis, plus many Europeans and Eastern Europeans (ex-soviet bloc) every single day.




If no-one's around to witness the hate crime, then does the hate crime exist?


It's funny to see US ideology applied to UK law.

// it's a part of brexit they ain't clarified yet.

// oh - the other thing that cuffs us is: you can't talk to jurors about the crime. That's a big no-no.


Edited by teh_saccade, 06 December 2017 - 08:27 AM.


#7 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:39 AM

Thanks man (-no one wants to talk to) :D


Edited by lowenz, 06 December 2017 - 08:52 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#8 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:49 AM

and a dozen Indian and Pakistanis

Well, how the original imperialists :D and now proud brexiters :D can forget that those countries were UK colonies for centuries so that "xenopresence" :D is quite obvious?


Edited by lowenz, 06 December 2017 - 08:51 AM.

  • teh_saccade likes this

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#9 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:32 PM

I call hogshit on hate speech being okay to be legal. If I were to call for a genocide or the reduction of rights for everyone who came from the British Isles, it would be blatantly seen as what it is: immoral and stupid. Same goes for all the cunts calling for anyone who is nonwhite who wishes to enter the US or Europe to be sterilized.

#10 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:48 PM

But to be stupid or immoral can't be tout-court a crime.

 

Let the stupid be MORE stupid and maybe everyone will see him for what he really is.

Criminalize the stupid and you'll see the victimhood (->victimism) starting, rolling and crushing the reason.


Edited by lowenz, 06 December 2017 - 07:50 PM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#11 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:38 PM

They can be after they do something as reprehensible as the Holocaust. I'd rather kill an aspiring neonazi about to take power as a state official than just "try to ignore him".

#12 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:38 PM

They can be after they do something as reprehensible as the Holocaust. I'd rather kill an aspiring neonazi about to take power as a state official than just "try to ignore him".

#13 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 36631 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:52 PM

I call hogshit on hate speech being okay to be legal

I'd rather kill an aspiring neonazi

 

That irony is fun.


  • Epifire and Abusimplea like this

#14 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 11:20 PM

 
That irony is fun.

Look, I'm just sayin that when it comes to genocide and racism, the government needs to take a firm hand against it.

#15 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 03:59 AM

But racism is inconsistent because, you know, there's no such thing as a human "race".

So they can keep talking about it like they talk about fairytales.

And you must tell with a smile that's a fairytale and nothing more. 'cause it's the rational view of reality.

 

Really, don't help a never-grown up man - like the one who believes in "race" or any kind of idealism - remain a child attacking throught the "state power" his petty moral values set.


Edited by lowenz, 07 December 2017 - 04:10 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#16 rich_is_bored

rich_is_bored

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 861 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 04:14 AM

Time doesn't stand still. Authority you grant the government today can be used against you tomorrow.

 

Good thing you don't toss around insults that could be misinterpreted.



#17 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:11 AM

Authority you grant the government today can be used against you tomorrow.

It's ONE of (among?) several reasons to detest some authority celebration movements (like italian fascism and its nephews).


Edited by lowenz, 07 December 2017 - 05:12 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#18 demagogue

demagogue

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5254 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 09:59 AM

For the record, the American First Amendment was a copy of the same provision in the Virginia constitution which was a British colony at the time. So ... the first draft of the First Amendment was originally a British law, for starters. Britain has long protected (and still does) free expression and religion in both common law jurisprudence and by legislation in substantively the same way as the US First Amendment with a few minor differences, for the appetizer. (The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but it still has constitutional law, so it's not really all that different in the end.) And the entire concept of freedom of speech and religion from the start developed primarily in Britain over the 17th Century, for the main course.

 

So the basic answer to your question is "because it does have a 1st amendment for all intents and purposes."

 

That said, a few things that run against free speech in the UK, like defamation law, are dumb and should be fixed.


  • nbohr1more, Anderson and Abusimplea like this
Posted Image

#19 teh_saccade

teh_saccade

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 544 posts

Posted 08 December 2017 - 01:16 AM

Well, how the original imperialists :D and now proud brexiters :D can forget that those countries were UK colonies for centuries so that "xenopresence" :D is quite obvious?

We are all English, sure as eggs is eggs.



#20 teh_saccade

teh_saccade

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 544 posts

Posted 08 December 2017 - 01:17 AM


That said, a few things that run against free speech in the UK, like defamation law, are dumb and should be fixed.

At least our country isn't run by a warmongering dictator.

Defamation law is there mostly for rich people and to prevent slanderous lies and misinformation regarding invidividuals - you are allowed to defame someone, say/print what you like, "heh, Pete's a homo, racist, gangster and killed people in their sleep"... but if I can prove none of this is true and it has cost me not only my reputation as a straight, not-racist, law abiding citizen - that particular law is my defense against people doing such a thing, if anyone were to take it seriously and their statements regarding my character caused me any issue such as - "you're fired, you homo, racist murdering gang-banger".

That's when I could bring discrimination law into it... because I'm allowed to be a homophobic homosexual racist and have been ordered to take a life in "defense" of the realm - the politics of which is basically one big gang-bang. Plus they'd have to prove I was even in a gang.

Case dismissed, gimmie mah cheddah, yo.


Edited by teh_saccade, 08 December 2017 - 01:26 AM.


#21 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 08 December 2017 - 05:05 AM

Trump is not "warmongering" is a classic ennerving bully. A glorified (by money) jerk :v

"Warmongering" implies some political vision :P and nobody can even imagine such thing about our special Donald.


Edited by lowenz, 08 December 2017 - 05:07 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#22 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 08 December 2017 - 05:09 AM

Defamation law is there mostly for rich people and to prevent slanderous lies and misinformation regarding invidividuals 

Here in Italy you can be charged of defamation speaking the truth too (about someone), the only requirement is the "honor damage" (sigh) taken by his/her social image.....


Edited by lowenz, 08 December 2017 - 05:10 AM.

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.


#23 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 812 posts

Posted 08 December 2017 - 08:54 AM

Besides The Human Rights Act, as a member of the Council of Europe and a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, Britain is legally bound to respect all up to date jurisprudence concerning the interpretations given by the Court in Strasbourg and adjust its law and practices to enforce them.

But freedom of speech does not  = discriminating against an entire people's religious/ethnic background and allowing people to promote a segregating mentality against any such group. Proportionality and rule of law includes banning clothes of extremely conservative clothing that carries the risk of succoring  terrorism.http://english.alara...n-Belgium-.html

 

But alienating against an entire people in a generalized, hysterical manner is not and is punishable by law under justified circumstances. Or else this discourse will become mainstream.

You can't reinvent the wheel. You have to ride it. Diverse society as the US example shows is the future and globalization will enforce it for those of us lucky enough to live in civilized countries.


Edited by Anderson, 08 December 2017 - 08:55 AM.

 "I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

 

 

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

 


#24 lowenz

lowenz

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1628 posts

Posted 08 December 2017 - 08:58 AM

Diverse society as the US example shows is the future and globalization will enforce it for those of us lucky enough to live in civilized countries.

Old URSS too :P

 

The fact is:

1) someone is childish and does not want that future and is free to be childish

2) someone is eager to collect votes of 1) - classic example of the pervertion of representative democracy - fearmongering & autovictimizing

 

See Marine Le Pen, our italian Salvini (the perfect poor match of Trump), etc.


Edited by lowenz, 08 December 2017 - 09:02 AM.

  • Anderson likes this

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users