4 months in prison for wearing a hateful t-shirt....yay for free speech Britain!

[Andre]

andre threads the thread that threaded the eye of the iris of the ball of the eyeball.

You needling me?

[brocktonblockbust]

andre threads the thread that threaded the eye of the iris of the ball of the eyeball.

You needling me?

no but ıts easıer for a camel to pass through than Lyle.

[Beanz]

It is a little naïve to believe that the concept often referred to as “Free Speech” is an absolute concept that can exist anywhere without exceptions. I believe I am right in asserting that in America it is not as many people refer to it “a Right “at all. This terminology could more correctly be used to describe the system enjoyed by British citizens under parliamentary law.

In the USA it can rightly be described as a negative right, or an immunity. That is the US government is forbidden by both law and tradition in acting to prevent the populaces expressions of free speech. Here in Great Britain Parliament may pass exceptions when deemed necessary. Two obvious examples are terrorism and hate speech. Don’t forget also that a lot of the UK’s anti terrorism laws were drafted in response to the IRA and long before 7/7 and 9/11.

We do not live in a constitutional republic and long may that may continue. We do though have a noble and long tradition of respecting civil rights and have used the Westminster system to respond to an evolving populace and the challenges that that presents. @TitoFan is right in asserting that one wearing such a T-Shirt should be aware that there are consequences to be faced for ones actions but I am not so sure about believing that the Guy acted thinking he was protected by freedom of speech laws. The guy in question was clearly trying to provoke a reaction even if that was because of his own grief and loss and in outraging public decency he invited the attention of the police.

Hate Speech is often a precursor to violence as the troubles in Ireland and Race riots in London have taught us, and so laws have long been in place to protect the individual from having their rights violated by hateful incitement that causes harm both physical and mental. You can not elevate the supposed right of one person to express hatred and incite violence against an individual or group whilst ignoring the targeted group or individuals right to exist and carry out their duties/day to day activities in a way that they do not feel threatened, intimidated or discriminated against. Hate Speech laws have also ensured that Racial, Homophobic and Disability based persecution has often been nipped in the bud before violence has occurred.


Incitement to violence is unlawful in the UK and the guys T-shirt could quite clearly be seen as advocating that in a court of law. Do we really want a society in which anything goes and an individuals freedom extends to promoting (after all that is what a t-shirt and a website advocating killing cops is worn for) the extinction of others?

I am not, contrary to what many may think, in any way advocating a politically correct totalitarian state, in which people's freedom to dissent and run against the tide of popular opinion is impinged upon. (In fact as an artist I often find myself torn between returning to tradition and elucidating the reasoning behind what many see as conservative or conventional techniques and the much easier and now mainstream practice of utilising post modernism and re breaking already long dismissed taboos.) I am just acting as Devil’s Advocate and suggesting a less obvious and reactionary viewpoint to Miles surprisingly conservative and American like perspective on what constitutes free speech here in England.

[Andre]

Yeah, intent has to come into free speech the same as hanging around in the wrong place.

[TitoFan]

Perhaps you don't fully grasp the idea of free speech. The deal is you can say what you want so long as it's not like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Being able to hit/punch/kick/strike a person is not "free speech". People are entitled to their rights until they violate someone else's and striking someone no matter how much of a dirtbag they are when it comes to free speech is against the law and rightfully so as people can get offended at the slightest of things. You've got to look big picture when talking about rights...if we allow someone to harm the person wearing the shirt in question we start down a slippery slope and where does it end? How can you validate who's properly offended enough to be allowed to react violently?

@El Kabong, I did not equate hitting or punching somebody with free speech... and if you would kindly go back and reread my post, you will clearly see that I did not. I am perfectly aware of what "free speech" entails. I'm merely saying that how ironic and how upsetting that, in our society, I can wear a hateful T-shirt saying how glad I am that a policewoman (or man) was blown away, and be protected by freedom of expression laws. But if a grieving relative of that victim were to punch me for doing that, he can be incarcerated for assault. That's all.

Hate Speech is often a precursor to violence as the troubles in Ireland and Race riots in London have taught us, and so laws have long been in place to protect the individual from having their rights violated by hateful incitement that causes harm both physical and mental. You can not elevate the supposed right of one person to express hatred and incite violence against an individual or group whilst ignoring the targeted group or individuals right to exist and carry out their duties/day to day activities in a way that they do not feel threatened, intimidated or discriminated against. Hate Speech laws have also ensured that Racial, Homophobic and Disability based persecution has often been nipped in the bud before violence has occurred.


Incitement to violence is unlawful in the UK and the guys T-shirt could quite clearly be seen as advocating that in a court of law. Do we really want a society in which anything goes and an individuals freedom extends to promoting (after all that is what a t-shirt and a website advocating killing cops is worn for) the extinction of others?

@Greenbeanz, I like the Hate Speech laws as you've described them. Some purists may see it as undermining what is commonly known as freedom of expression... but I also think that laws need to include the leeway, provisions, loopholes... whatever anyone wants to call them... to exclude violence-inciting expression. As a matter of fact, as with other things, maybe this is one of those areas where the U.S. could consider, compare... and maybe enact some similar laws.

[brocktonblockbust]

How can you validate who's properly offended enough to be allowed to react violently?

Lyle ı have to say----

[brocktonblockbust]

How can you validate who's properly offended enough to be allowed to react violently?

Lyle ı have to say----

Lyle ıt ıs worth ıt agaın ----

:

[VictorCharlie]

I am generally ok with limiting time and place of hate speech but I am strongly in support of of a broad protection of speech of any kind. If a city ordnance requires an application for rallies and prescribes the time and locations of such rallies then I think that is reasonable but I can't support incarcerating someone b/c their speech is abhorrent.