Originally posted by sailor
Well, what about that guy who was arrested and jailed for holding a sign critical of the President? The excuse was that he was somehow dangerous but people with signs favorable to the President are OK. So, I would say that, yes, you can be jailed for criticizing the President.
Well, looking at the links, it appears to me that (1) he was not arrested so much for what his sign said as for where he insisted on displaying it, (2) he has not been convicted, and (3) it appears that other government officials are attempting to intervene to have the case dropped.
The quoted articles don’t say that he was jailed, just that he was arrested, which is not the same thing.
IMO he should have been allowed to carry the sign, as long as he was not endangering anyone’s safety or security. I would not be at all surprised if the case were dropped.
Sometimes, people are just looking for an issue. Sometimes, things are taken out of context and exaggerated.
Well, I’ll make one final post here.
First off, what I heard about British free speech rights didn’t come from one source, I’ve heard it off and on for years now. Although I think I mostly heard it when I was younger. Obviously it’s all BS from the replies to this post though.
Second, I tried looking up this issue on line and am having a hard time finding anything about what I’ve heard, but I found a little. For example, maybe what I heard are misunderstandings stemming from Britain’s liable laws: http://www.charter88.org.uk/pubs/violations/bindm.html
And about the only other site I could find of someone claiming about less freedom of speech in Britain is: http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/SoyouthinkDO.html
Ah, you should have put those links and quotes in the OP. It looks as if these are actions of private citizens against other private citizens. Hence criticizing the government doesn’t come into play at all. This distinction has been dealt with by Derleth and others. The U.S. has libel laws as well, as do most countries AFAIK.
That said, it may be true that the British libel laws are in fact more restrictive than those in other countries. Part of this may be due to the specifics of procedural law. Someone who’s well into British law may be able to fill in the details. What I vaguely remember is that the defendant has to prove that his statements of fact are correct, which is harder then having to prove that his statements are justified given the evidence available.
Another thing is that procedural costs and fines can be prohibitively high. In one case the costs were so high that the European Court of Human Rights intervened (the Count Tolstoy case).
Still, British judges have to comply with the Rome Treaty which does protect free speech, and has to consider the public interest defense. So the quoted statement AFAIK is not correct as it stands. But within the limits left by the Rome Treaty there is an impression that British law indeed used to be more restrictive when an action was based on libel. Whether you find that good or bad depends on whether you feel more for free speech of for protection of good reputation.
Its worth noting that the Charter88 article is a little out of date. Since that article was written the Human Rights Act 1998 has been passed, which does specifically guarantee freedom of speech. I’m not sure what effect this has had on the libel laws though.
The question has been answered, so I’ll close this thread. Debates about which political party is friendlier to free speech, the effects of the Patriot Act on free speech, etc., belong in the Great Debates forum.