I’ve heard that in Britain, you are not allowed to criticize the government. If that’s true, then please help explain the details to me.
I’m guessing that the lack of freedom to criticize the government is pretty much meant for things like books, magazines, news papers, TV, and radio, as opposed to every day Britons having conversations with each other, right? Or, if two people were talking about how they disagreed with a certain government action, and a police officer walked by, would both of the people talking get some sort of fine, or ticket, or some other sort of punishment?
And what about the BBC who was against the war in Iraq? Although their criticism was largely aimed at the US, would being against the war mean being against Tony Blair and his policies?
And finally, what is the punishment for criticizing the government?
Thanks.
Are you kidding? Have you been reading the headlines? Everybody in UK seems to be savaging their current government over there!
Your source is obviously either confused or false.
For proof of that, tune into C-SPAN at 6 and 9 PM (Pacific Coast Time), and watch “Prime Minister’s Question Time”.
If that isn’t criticism, I wouldn’t know what is.
The Law of Sedition was the general basis for prosecuting those who criticised the UK Government on the basis of “inciting rebellion”! I cannot quickly establish through google or UK legal websites when exactly it was repealed but sometime in the 19040’s/50’s I would guess.
Now we are given to understand we live in a free country (yeah right) and for now we can have our say.
The U.S.A. is where you presently run the risk of jail for criticizing the government.
–CoffeeGuy
The OP may be referring unintentionally to the Treason Felony Act 1848, which makes it illegal to advocate the abolition of the monarchy. A challenge to this law was recently dismissed, essentially on the (somewhat dubious IMHO) grounds that the Government has no intention of enforcing it.
Cite?
Well, after reading the first couple of replies, I tried looking this up in Google, and had a hard time finding much on the subject, but looking over the sites that mention this topic, it seems to me, from what I can gather, that there pretty much is freedom of speach and the press in Britain, it’s just that there’s no constituional protection for it. I guess that makes freedom of speach and freedom of the press a privilage, rather than a right.
–CoffeeGuy
Damn, I was going to do that. You beat me to it! :smack:
Well, of course there’s no constitutional protection for it, as Great Britain has no constitution. Nothing has constitutional protection. That, however, does not mean that the citizens of GB have only privileges and no rights.
Good point. OK, well, I’m getting everything all wrong so I’ll just shut up now.
I have been told the theory is we are better off without a written constitution on the basis that anything that defines our Rights suggests we have no right to stuff not on the list. The upside then being we have the right to do anything that is not illegal and the write to elect a government to repeal (and pass) any laws we feel need changing. A pragmatic position?
I used to agree but have had my faith shaken by the Hutton Enquiry here in the UK which suggests to me that the Executive is out of control and answerable to nobody - not even Special Committees formed to investigate things. It has taken a High Court Judge to appear for certain crucial evidence to finally appear…
Maybe I should start a new thread as to whether the UK now needs a Constitution?
I’m a bit surprised to learn that Britain still doesn’t have a written constitution; somehow I’d picked up that they had passed a constitution a couple of years ago. Guess I was wrong.
BTW, even if there would not be British (unwritten) constitutional rights, British citizens can still claim protection for human rights (among which freedom of expression) by way of the European Court of Human Rights (=Rome Treaty). In fact, this has happened in the past in cases where the British government and law was found to be too restrictive.
It is similar like the U.S.: if your state court won’t give you constitutional protection, you go a level higher.
FTR, contrary to what Gorsnak said, Britain does have a constitution, albeit a largely unwritten one. You may Google for ‘British constitution’. You can also look up any book on British law, such as James’ Introduction to English Law, 13th ed., par. 5.2.
The “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act”. (Shiver)
–CoffeeGuy
All my heroes have been killed by cowboys.
To remove all doubt about whether Britons can criticize their own government:
OK, lets try this again, shall we…
Cite?
(psst- try to be specific, mmmkay?)
In other words, what specifically enables law enforcement in the US to jail you for being critical of the government. Perhaps a passage from your aforementioned legislation that enforces your position. This is GQ afterall.
Here’s my cite that says you’re wrong.
Britain does have a constitution, albeit a largely unwritten one.
But only unwritten in the sense that it’s not a single document, but a collective and ongoing body of written law from various statutes, treaties, legal precedents, etc: see British Constitution.
And then there’s this place, where anyone can spout off about anything without fear of reprisal.
Chandeleur
What I think CoffeeGuy is suggesting (based on his [misperceived?] observations) is that due to the Patriot Act, DMCA …etc and the current attitude of the Bush admin. (again, a perception), if the govt. doesn’t like what one says, the govt. will find a way to persecute you on some technicality (not necessarily related to one’s utterances) somehow.
I don’t completely agree with that assessment, but I think there’s a grain of truth in it. Although, this tends to happen with most governments around the world.