What is the legal extent of freedom of speech in your country and how does it differ in its practice ?
What do you regard as acceptable and unacceptable in terms of free speech, and to what extent do you exercise the right in you own life and how tolerant are you of others engaging in freedom of expression ?
An example from the UK, an acquaintance of mine shouted out "no more war" at a remembrance ceremony and has subsequently charge with " 'use of threatening, abusive or insulting words/disorderly within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby CONTRARY TO SECTION 5 (1) AND (6) OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986."
I wouldn't have done this myself, but how would his act have been reacted to in your country ?
I wonder if we can get those Westbury clowns to go to England where they can be locked up then.
Is this due by the end of class?
My dog ate my homework.
There is no freedom of speech in the UK nowadays mongers.
As it happens, it does not yet impinge on me directly; I'm far too well-mannered to fall foul of the new laws; nevertheless they are disgraceful :mad:
I wish all political hecklers would STFU.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2011, 07:04:38 PM
I wish all political hecklers would STFU.
So you're only in favour of freedom of speech for politicians ?
Quote from: mongers on December 29, 2011, 07:08:38 PM
So you're only in favour of freedom of speech for politicians ?
I don't get how freedom of speech means you get to come in yell in my ear when I'm trying to hear what someone else is saying.
Freedom of speech is very good over here. Even corporations have it.
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2011, 07:16:53 PM
Freedom of speech is very good over here. Even corporations have it.
And Westboro Baptist.
Wow. Your acquaintance is a jerk.
Quote from: Neil on December 29, 2011, 07:51:55 PM
Wow. Your acquaintance is a jerk.
Are you surprised that a guy whose full handle used to be "draftwarmongers" has a friend who would do that? :D
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2011, 08:29:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 29, 2011, 07:51:55 PM
Wow. Your acquaintance is a jerk.
Are you surprised that a guy whose full handle used to be "draftwarmongers" has a friend who would do that? :D
Well to be fair I said acquaintance and more of the story is he was in parliament square when he said it, which is about 150 yards from the cenotaph where the ceremony was taking place.
Besides he's an quite a brave person, risking imprisonment in Turkey to mock the Turkish president, not someone you do lightly over there.
No more war? What an asshole. The kind of crypto-rightist who thinks it's fine and dandy that the PRC disappears people and that the DPRK exists. Utter cunts.
My country gives me the freedom to call British people I don't know and will never meet "cunts." It's pretty great. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on December 29, 2011, 09:37:46 PM
No more war? What an asshole.
No kidding. Humanity couldn't live without war. Think of all the great inventions born from war.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 29, 2011, 09:37:46 PM
No more war? What an asshole. The kind of crypto-rightist who thinks it's fine and dandy that the PRC disappears people and that the DPRK exists. Utter cunts.
My country gives me the freedom to call British people I don't know and will never meet "cunts." It's pretty great. :)
That's not really freedom of speech is it ?
Yeah, actually it is. Cunt.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 29, 2011, 09:59:19 PM
Yeah, actually it is. Cunt.
Do try growing up, I wasn't supporting what the guy did, but using it as a good example of where freedom of speech conflicts with social norms, but don't let that stop you with your infantile insults.
Do try growing up and realizing when a joke is being made. Cunt.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 29, 2011, 10:07:16 PM
Do try growing up and realizing when a joke is being made. Cunt.
Well you're the most piss poor joker I've encountered.
Cuntastic!
It really is a form of freedom of expression, M.
P.S. your buddy probably isn't really an asshole or a cunt. He's probably a perfectly nice guy who simply hasn't thought things through and thus has embraced a simplistic slogan that in practice would permit the most heinous of crimes.
Quote from: mongers on December 29, 2011, 10:09:19 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 29, 2011, 10:07:16 PM
Do try growing up and realizing when a joke is being made. Cunt.
Well you're the most piss poor joker I've encountered.
The butt of the joke rarely enjoys the joke. :homestar:
Quote from: mongers on December 29, 2011, 10:03:43 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 29, 2011, 09:59:19 PM
Yeah, actually it is. Cunt.
Do try growing up, I wasn't supporting what the guy did, but using it as a good example of where freedom of speech conflicts with social norms, but don't let that stop you with your infantile insults.
Freedom of speech that only protects things that don't conflict with social norms doesn't deserve to be called freedom of speech.
Quote from: mongers on December 29, 2011, 06:18:44 PM
What is the legal extent of freedom of speech in your country and how does it differ in its practice ?
What do you regard as acceptable and unacceptable in terms of free speech, and to what extent do you exercise the right in you own life and how tolerant are you of others engaging in freedom of expression ?
An example from the UK, an acquaintance of mine shouted out "no more war" at a remembrance ceremony and has subsequently charge with " 'use of threatening, abusive or insulting words/disorderly within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby CONTRARY TO SECTION 5 (1) AND (6) OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986."
I wouldn't have done this myself, but how would his act have been reacted to in your country ?
Criminal law: death threats & hate speech (including negation of the Holocaust).
Common/Civil law: Just about anything you say can be construed as libel, even if it's true. The person suing has to prove there were emotional and/or financial damages, and it can't be public knowledge beforehand. Media amplicafication (lots of medias spin the story everyday, repeating the damaging words) can be attenuating circumstances and reduce the damages. Provocation can also do that.
Freedom of speech in Sweden is fairly limited.
Poland is a pretty fucked up country when it comes to freedom of speech. This comes from the fact that a number of restrictions from the communist era stayed on the books and each subsequent ruling elite (whether catholic fundamentalists or liberal left) just added to the list of things you cannot say instead of removing from it (even now, the progressive leftist party I voted for is more interested in criminalizing hate speech against gays than to remove some of the stuff described below).
So we, at least on paper, criminalize hate speech (based on gender, religion, race, ethnicity and "other characteristics"), blasphemy ("offending religious feelings" of people), lese majeste ("insulting a head of state"), certain forms of libel, flag burning (and other forms of "disrespecting" it), threats, "showing pornography to people who might not want to see it", certain speech based on content (advocating/supporting nazism, communism and fascism, a NAMBLA-style advocating of sex with minors) etc. In practice, most of these are not persecuted but this makes an individual decision to prosecute arbitrary and political, which I guess is worse - not to mention, Poland has a weird institution of a "private prosecution" which allows e.g. a Catholic offended by a musician tearing up the Bible on stage to bring a criminal case if a prosecutor refuses to do so - so you constantly read about these cases even if they are almost always dismissed.
Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2011, 03:09:19 AM
Freedom of speech in Sweden is fairly limited.
Does "fair" mean "quite" or "appropriate" here? :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:33:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2011, 03:09:19 AM
Freedom of speech in Sweden is fairly limited.
Does "fair" mean "quite" or "appropriate" here? :P
You want to get me jailed?
The official speech at a remembrance ceremony here will be "no more war", so shouting that is fine. However, if you express that you are pro war, you might get into trouble.
Fun fact: the conservative catholic Polish government of the time was probably one of the very few ones in Europe that condemned the Dutch newspaper for printing Mohammad cartoons.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:32:59 AM
Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).
Truth is almost always a total defence in English libel law. The trouble is it's the most difficult defence. On a purely practical level chances are the claimant has the proof as to whether what the defendant said was true or not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 03:50:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:32:59 AM
Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).
Truth is almost always a total defence in English libel law. The trouble is it's the most difficult defence. On a purely practical level chances are the claimant has the proof as to whether what the defendant said was true or not.
Well, I meant more in the sense of printing something in a newspaper, as this is where libel lawsuits are now most popular. I thought that you had this "public interest" thing too (at least that's what I remember from Brazen discussing UK law here).
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:53:15 AM
Well, I meant more in the sense of printing something in a newspaper, as this is where libel lawsuits are now most popular. I thought that you had this "public interest" thing too (at least that's what I remember from Brazen discussing UK law here).
Yeah. If something's true, with a couple of exceptions like spent criminal convictions, then you've a total defence. But it's very difficult to prove. The public interest defence is basically for cases where you can't demonstrate truth and it's a factual allegation rather than 'fair comment'.
Edit: But they're all separate defences. You're fine if you can prove truth, you don't need to demonstrate that it was then fair comment or in the public interest.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 03:58:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:53:15 AM
Well, I meant more in the sense of printing something in a newspaper, as this is where libel lawsuits are now most popular. I thought that you had this "public interest" thing too (at least that's what I remember from Brazen discussing UK law here).
Yeah. If something's true, with a couple of exceptions like spent criminal convictions, then you've a total defence. But it's very difficult to prove. The public interest defence is basically for cases where you can't demonstrate truth and it's a factual allegation rather than 'fair comment'.
Edit: But they're all separate defences. You're fine if you can prove truth, you don't need to demonstrate that it was then fair comment or in the public interest.
Ok gotcha. In Poland you have to prove both.
How do you "prove" things in a country with no concept of Logic, Mathematics, or Science?
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 04:49:38 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 03:58:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:53:15 AM
Well, I meant more in the sense of printing something in a newspaper, as this is where libel lawsuits are now most popular. I thought that you had this "public interest" thing too (at least that's what I remember from Brazen discussing UK law here).
Yeah. If something's true, with a couple of exceptions like spent criminal convictions, then you've a total defence. But it's very difficult to prove. The public interest defence is basically for cases where you can't demonstrate truth and it's a factual allegation rather than 'fair comment'.
Edit: But they're all separate defences. You're fine if you can prove truth, you don't need to demonstrate that it was then fair comment or in the public interest.
Ok gotcha. In Poland you have to prove both.
Same in Sweden.
So in the UK you can register FrankIsAFaggot.co.uk with details of Frank's faggotry and then send the link to all his family, friends, co-workers and clients etc with the intent to harm Frank and it's OK as long as it's true?
Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2011, 06:57:06 AM
So in the UK you can register FrankIsAFaggot.co.uk with details of Frank's faggotry and then send the link to all his family, friends, co-workers and clients etc with the intent to harm Frank and it's OK as long as it's true?
You're not defaming someone if it's true. If the statement's true then the defendant's been entirely exonerated, with a couple of exceptions, so motive doesn't matter.
That example would probably be covered by Frank's right to privacy and I think it's more than possible a judge would throw it out as non-defamatory. It's only defamation if it would cause a substantial change of opinion by reasonable people towards you. So for example someone sued for libel having been accused of being a snitch and the judge threw it out on the grounds that reasonable people inform the police. I'm not sure that being acused of being gay would now count as defamatory, maybe 20 years ago.
Of course in English law the burden of proof is on the defendant and the assumption is that the statement is defamatory. So you'd have to have lots of evidence.
QuoteSo for example someone sued for libel having been accused of being a snitch and the judge threw it out on the grounds that reasonable people inform the police. I'm not sure that being acused of being gay would now count as defamatory, maybe 20 years ago.
Could be an interesting case that.
Officially of course it isn't.
But in practice...could well see some arguments that in business X to be seen as gay is damaging, etc...
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 03:50:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:32:59 AM
Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).
Truth is almost always a total defence in English libel law. The trouble is it's the most difficult defence. On a purely practical level chances are the claimant has the proof as to whether what the defendant said was true or not.
In US law the truth of a libel (or slander) is an absolute defense. The problem, as you alluded too, is that it's an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proving the truth of the statement falls on the defendent.
There's not a general requirement that a statement in a paper be in the public interest or such. However, even if one is protected from libel or slander charges by being able to prove the truth of a statement, it's possible that one may be sued for invasion of privacy or the like, if the person the statement was about isn't a public figure of some sort. For example, take the case of John Edwards. He ran for President--there's no doubt that he's a public figure of national note--and there's pretty much irrefutable evidence that he cheated on his wife, so a newpaper--say USA Today--won't have face any liability if they print that he committed adultery. On the other hand, lemonjello, while he has admitted here that he has cheated on his wife, and is a successful attorney, probably isn't a public figure on a national scale, so USA Today, while they couldn't successfully be sued for libel if they found out his real name and ran a story saying that he had committed adultery because they could use his posts on Languish to prove the truth of the claim, might be able to be sued successfully for invading his privacy. However, he probably is a public figure in the city where he lives, so a local newspaper there would probably not have to worry about an invasion of privacy suit, either.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2011, 05:26:53 AM
How do you "prove" things in a country with no concept of Logic, Mathematics, or Science?
Swords and fire, I imagine.
Quote from: mongers on December 29, 2011, 06:18:44 PM
What is the legal extent of freedom of speech in your country and how does it differ in its practice ?
What do you regard as acceptable and unacceptable in terms of free speech, and to what extent do you exercise the right in you own life and how tolerant are you of others engaging in freedom of expression ?
An example from the UK, an acquaintance of mine shouted out "no more war" at a remembrance ceremony and has subsequently charge with " 'use of threatening, abusive or insulting words/disorderly within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby CONTRARY TO SECTION 5 (1) AND (6) OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986."
I wouldn't have done this myself, but how would his act have been reacted to in your country ?
Was your friend at the Cenotaph???
Quote from: Warspite on December 30, 2011, 02:21:41 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 29, 2011, 06:18:44 PM
What is the legal extent of freedom of speech in your country and how does it differ in its practice ?
What do you regard as acceptable and unacceptable in terms of free speech, and to what extent do you exercise the right in you own life and how tolerant are you of others engaging in freedom of expression ?
An example from the UK, an acquaintance of mine shouted out "no more war" at a remembrance ceremony and has subsequently charge with " 'use of threatening, abusive or insulting words/disorderly within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby CONTRARY TO SECTION 5 (1) AND (6) OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986."
I wouldn't have done this myself, but how would his act have been reacted to in your country ?
Was your friend at the Cenotaph???
He was in parliament square at the time, so I guess that's 150yds from the Cenotaph proper, so probably wasn't heard there; though obviously he must have been overheard by police and visitors close to Parliament.
I see. I was at the Cenotaph and could hear someone shouting that at the start of the two minutes' silence, but from up Whitehall towards Trafalgar Square.
Quote from: Warspite on December 30, 2011, 02:36:48 PM
I see. I was at the Cenotaph and could hear someone shouting that at the start of the two minutes' silence, but from up Whitehall towards Trafalgar Square.
Yes that could have been anyone from that direction, a protestor, a tourist, student, kids mucking around.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2011, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 03:50:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:32:59 AM
Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).
Truth is almost always a total defence in English libel law. The trouble is it's the most difficult defence. On a purely practical level chances are the claimant has the proof as to whether what the defendant said was true or not.
In US law the truth of a libel (or slander) is an absolute defense. The problem, as you alluded too, is that it's an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proving the truth of the statement falls on the defendent.
There's not a general requirement that a statement in a paper be in the public interest or such. However, even if one is protected from libel or slander charges by being able to prove the truth of a statement, it's possible that one may be sued for invasion of privacy or the like, if the person the statement was about isn't a public figure of some sort. For example, take the case of John Edwards. He ran for President--there's no doubt that he's a public figure of national note--and there's pretty much irrefutable evidence that he cheated on his wife, so a newpaper--say USA Today--won't have face any liability if they print that he committed adultery. On the other hand, lemonjello, while he has admitted here that he has cheated on his wife, and is a successful attorney, probably isn't a public figure on a national scale, so USA Today, while they couldn't successfully be sued for libel if they found out his real name and ran a story saying that he had committed adultery because they could use his posts on Languish to prove the truth of the claim, might be able to be sued successfully for invading his privacy. However, he probably is a public figure in the city where he lives, so a local newspaper there would probably not have to worry about an invasion of privacy suit, either.
Ok so the end effect is similar I guess.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 07:08:54 AM
You're not defaming someone if it's true. If the statement's true then the defendant's been entirely exonerated, with a couple of exceptions, so motive doesn't matter.
A little nit pick. The truth of a statement does not make it any less defamatory. Truth provides a defence to an action in defamation not because the statement being true makes the statement less damaging to the person but because the statement is justified. So although the person suffered damage as a result of the statement he can not recover those damages from the person who made the true statement.