put away the thesaurus dude.

Yes, incitement is a bit murky. Any laws surrounding it should be carefully considered.

Yes, incitement is a bit murky. Any laws surrounding it should be carefully considered.

As they are by the authorities. Unfortunately the tabloid press and the populists don’t operate to the same high standards.

This is the issue which keeps coming up in this thread. That the row over free speech takes situations where incitement and racial prejudice are occurring in a public arena insisting that it is a free speech issue. It isn’t, it’s a public order issue. — Punshhh

You snuck racial prejudice in there. That isnt incitement. By Incitement I mean direct calls to violence. Expressing opinions other than that, no matter how much I disagree or am disgusted by, is free speech.

Where it occurs in private, not in a public arena it is allowed (within reason) and there are no restrictions on what you can say. But in a public space, it can be amplified by group activity and bad actors can use it to stir up a crowd. — Punshhh

Thats the responsibility of the bad actors and the crowd. As long as there is not a direct call to violence its free speech and I want it protected.

I think he was suggesting I was acting in bad faith, not you. — Punshhh

Ah, I see what he meant now.

As they are by the authorities. Unfortunately the tabloid press and the populists don’t operate to the same high standards. — Punshhh

Incitement is just as easily used as an excuse that shut down free speech when it is wielded as a weapon by press and authorities. Thats why its tricky with incitement, it becomes a tool of politics and culture wars. Bad actors in the press and in positions of authority are exactly the reason free speech is so so so important. Free speech protects all other rights and authoritarians, dictators etc always come for language and speech first.

Bad actors in the press and in positions of authority are exactly the reason free speech is so so so important. Free speech protects all other rights and authoritarians, dictators etc always come for language and speech first.

Quite, so it’s not applicable in the case of the U.K. then.

And with regard to the press, in the U.K. the press is shouting the loudest about protecting free speech. Unless, by the way it’s the kind of free speech they don’t like.

The UK is fucked on free speech. Its insane so many refuse to even admit there is a problem, but humans are gonna human what can you do?

You snuck racial prejudice in there.

Not snuck, it’s also a public order issue, because it spreads easily and once embedded is very difficult to dislodge. Take the case of the Southport riots, everyone rioting had strong feelings of racial prejudice. Racism has a peculiarly visceral, or primeval effect on people.

The UK is fucked on free speech. It’s insane so many refuse to even admit there is a problem, but humans are gonna human what can you do?

It isn’t, it’s a culture war fabrication whipped up by the tabloid media and populists.

Riots are the “public order” issue. Peoples feelings do not justify violence. Public order is maintained through laws other than free speech laws, like no rioting and violence and looting.

↪Alexander Hine put away the thesaurus dude. — flannel jesus

And the bovine beast that chews the straw once, chews it for a second time.

Riots are the “public order” issue. Peoples feelings do not justify violence. Public order is maintained through laws other than free speech laws, like no rioting and violence and looting.

And the riots were incited through social media groups and the tabloid press. Now what are the police supposed to do about that? Just sit back and let the mob just roam around on the streets?

In the U.K. the authorities seem powerless when the ring leaders are politicians, or Media moguls. Either there aren’t the requisite powers in place, or they won’t go near them for fear of a backlash and greater public disorder.

It is commonplace for the authorities to label an issue political and then just leave it alone taking no action. So rather than the authorities clamping down, or repressing free speech. The opposite is happening. Political free speech is left alone, even when it is inciting a breakdown in public order, or crossing a line into racial prejudice. Leaving the authorities only able to deal with offenders when they commit criminal offences.

This is where the breakdown is happening. So infact free speech is alive and well in the U.K. and now includes incitement, where it is labelled political and racism because it’s alright for people to be racist if they have legitimate concerns about immigration. Infact it seems to be a greater offence in the media space for someone to accuse someone of being racist, than to actually be racist.

So…no problem to see here.

So…no problem to see here.

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying it isn’t about free speech, but rather about public order and the authorities grappling with the recent developments in social media. While trying not to get drawn into political rows.

So…no problem with free speech to see here.

So…no problem with free speech to see here.

I answered that earlier in the thread;

As a person on the ground I can’t think of any speech, which wasn’t already taboo, being restricted in the population. What there is is some cancellation in University speaking events around sensitive issues such as gender, transsexuality, issues which have been exploited by the populists and some political correctness around these issues in institutions. These are limited circumstances and forums, while the public at large has no restriction at all on their free speech.

If you can give an example of speech which is becoming more restricted I’d be interested to know. Then we would have something to debate.

It would've been preferable to simply ask what I meant here. I mean, I think you're also being a bit combative and not quite capturing the most reasonable version of your argument.

You want to learn how to actually combat racism? Google Daryl Davies. Single handedly done more to combat racism than all the speech control efforts combined. — DingoJones

This, for instance, isn't the strongest thing to bring up as its very, very context-dependent and perhaps the only example of a similar approach working en masse (even then, Daryl's output isn't not 'masses'. KKK were mostly thwarted financially).

It wasn't an attack.

Didnt mean to be combative, but I see now the opening tone of that text could be taken that way. Apologies.
I compared Davies method to free speech controls, not all methods. I will take your word for it that financial methods have worked best. My point was that speech control isnt an effective method.

If you can give an example of speech which is becoming more restricted I’d be interested to know. Then we would have something to debate. — Punshhh

You would call them hate speech Id imagine, hate speech is free speech to me though so short if direct incitement or libel I think it should be protected. Certainly no one should be going to jail or paying a fine for teaching their girlfriends pug to Nazi salute, if you want an example.

You can say anything you like, or teach your dog anything you like in private, or in a non public space. When you do it in a public space there may be a risk of incitement, or abuse, of others, such as vulnerable groups sharing that space. The authorities will police those spaces with an eye to public order. On most occasions the risk is low, so the authorities will not intervene.

When it comes to publishing the law is more strict because the extent of exposure could increase exponentially and is unpredictable.

This is exactly what he's talking about. Totally ignoring that there have been several hundred detentions for simply posting something on the internet that someone, somewhere doesn't like.

You realise that's the benchmark right? Someone claimed to be upset by something you said? If the state can intervene in such circumstances, you do not have free speech. Plain and simple.

You can say anything you like, or teach your dog anything you like in private, or in a non public space. When you do it in a public space there may be a risk of incitement, or abuse, of others, such as vulnerable groups sharing that space. The authorities will police those spaces with an eye to public order. On most occasions the risk is low, so the authorities will not intervene.

When it comes to publishing the law is more strict because the extent of exposure could increase exponentially and is unpredictable. — Punshhh

As you’ve stated already yes. I just dont buy the distinction as I’ve already stated. The same argument was used for violence in video games or movies, even comic books. It wasnt convincing then either.
“May” be “risk” of incitement or abuse (huh?) is flimsy and weak as a basis for authoritarian control.

I just dont buy the distinction as I’ve already stated

Cool, that’s your prerogative. I didn’t see an issue particularly when I first took to social media. But then I kept hearing stories of posters being sued for defamation. Then I realised that posting on social media is legally a form of publishing. To publish speech is to amplify it, meaning that large numbers of people will hear it. This makes it a special kind of free speech, the freedom to communicate what you have to say to large numbers of people. It’s like walking around in a crowd of people with a loud haler shouting everything you’re thinking, so that everyone there has to hear it.
Now we are free to say anything we want to our friends and our family, even a stranger. There are no laws against it. This is free speech. But should we also be free to shout it through a loud haler in a crowded place? Is this a necessary part of free speech? Or should free speech include the freedom to publish in a paper, or broadcast on the TV anything I want to say, whenever I like?

“May” be “risk” of incitement or abuse (huh?) is flimsy and weak as a basis for authoritarian control.

Well the police have a role to play in society, they are experts at their job and that job includes maintaining public order, amongst many other things.

Correction, freedom to publish.

Cool, that’s your prerogative. I didn’t see an issue particularly when I first took to social media. But then I kept hearing stories of posters being sued for defamation. Then I realised that posting on social media is legally a form of publishing. To publish speech is to amplify it, meaning that large numbers of people will hear it. This makes it a special kind of free speech, the freedom to communicate what you have to say to large numbers of people. It’s like walking around in a crowd of people with a loud haler shouting everything you’re thinking, so that everyone there has to hear it. — Punshhh

Its not like that at all, no one is forcing people to read and listen to published material so your analogy fails.

Well the police have a role to play in society, they are experts at their job and that job includes maintaining public order, amongst many other things. — Punshhh

Some things are worth authoritarian control, like preventing murder or rape and aforementioned incitement (direct incitement) or libel. Not opinions, jokes or pugs doing the nazi salute (yes, even to a wide audience) are not. Indeed the police have more important things to do, such as preventing murder or rape.

Its not like that at all, no one is forcing people to read and listen to published material so your analogy fails.

For the analogy to work, it only has to demonstrate that more people will be exposed to the material than if it were expressed in private. It is self evident. Or are you saying publishing speech doesn’t reach a wider audience?

Not opinions, jokes or pugs doing the nazi salute (yes, even to a wide audience) are not. Indeed the police have more important things to do, such as preventing murder or rape.

Yes and the police will do their job. I would think that the police would only look into it after a specific public order issue has been brought to their attention.

I agree that some content on social media is harmless when it reaches a wider audience. But there is a spectrum of material and there is a clear phenomena of populists, or bad actors, for whatever reason exploiting the process. This is also on the police’s radar.

There is also a pattern emerging in these debates. It only seems to be issues given publicity by the right wing press, or populists groups where there is a free speech concern. When the speech doesn’t not fit these agendas, it is of no concern. Indeed it is often the same people who might start saying this other speech should be restricted. It’s odd that, isn’t it?

Fair - a distinction that does matter. I've noted before, publication is not as clear-cut as you make it seem.

Publication benchmarks tend to only be met by public figures. If not many people see your comment, this owuldn't apply. Which is likely why there haven't been more prosecutions.

In either case though (lets assume that every case is a publication issue) that is still clearly wrong in a democratic, adult society. Particularly one where, increasingly, use of social media is akin to talking shit with at the pub. Its a bit of a category error to capture social media posts by non-public figures with that i think (but this is just my opinion).

For the analogy to work, it only has to demonstrate that more people will be exposed to the material than if it were expressed in private. It is self evident. Or are you saying publishing speech doesn’t reach a wider audience? — Punshhh

Im saying I don’t care. I do not recognize/accept your exclusion of published material as separate from free speech. Free speech isnt about how many people are reached. I make no distinction between public or private free speech on this matter.

Yes and the police will do their job. I would think that the police would only look into it after a specific public order issue has been brought to their attention.

I agree that some content on social media is harmless when it reaches a wider audience. But there is a spectrum of material and there is a clear phenomena of populists, or bad actors, for whatever reason exploiting the process. This is also on the police’s radar.

There is also a pattern emerging in these debates. It only seems to be issues given publicity by the right wing press, or populists groups where there is a free speech concern. When the speech doesn’t not fit these agendas, it is of no concern. Indeed it is often the same people who might start saying this other speech should be restricted. It’s odd that, isn’t it? — Punshhh

As Ive said, incitement and libel. The “spectrum of material” has to be directly and clearly one of those otherwise my stance is it should not be restricted.
Certainly not jokes and certainly not opinion, whatever they may be.

In either case though (lets assume that every case is a publication issue) that is still clearly wrong in a democratic, adult society. Particularly one where, increasingly, use of social media is akin to talking shit with at the pub. It’s a bit of a category error to capture social media posts by non-public figures with that i think (but this is just my opinion).

Yes, agreed. There probably does need to be a distinction made between the two.