The UK (and Europe's) free speech problem

[DemonTree]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Maybe mining the net for supportive data points for a given position isn’t the best way to approach this. So let’s again look at data from professional research institutes that have at least tried to define objective metrics by which to assess effective freedom of expression in different countries.

IMO this misses the point. The UK currently has a better leader and government than the US. But it has worse laws, and far less legal protection for citizens: even under an ordinary, if mediocre leader, British people are getting visits from the police over social media posts, and some even face arrest for protesting. And having a normal, reasonable government is something that can change quickly.

If the UK ever gets a leader like Trump, we’ll be even worse off than Americans, because the government has far more power over us.

---

I came to post an update on this story:

@DemonTree

Hamit Coskun fined after burning a copy of the Quran in London - BBC News

Hamit Coskun burns Quran outside Turkish embassy, is attacked by two other men, then he is arrested by the police for blasphemy a religiously aggravated public order offence, convicted, and fined.

Now one of the men who attacked him - threatened to kill him, slashed at him with a knife - has been spared jail:

Man spared jail over attacking Quran-burning protester

Absolutely disgraceful decision. It wasn’t a spur of the moment act: the man went off to get a knife before attacking Coskun with it. There is supposed to be a minimum sentence of 6 months for threatening someone with a knife, yet this guy didn’t even get that much. The law is completely backwards. Non-threatening speech like this should be protected, and attacking someone to try to prevent protected speech should be an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.

[crowmanyclouds]

@DemonTree

Hamit Coskun burns Quran outside Turkish embassy, is attacked by two other men, then he is arrested by the police for blasphemy a religiously aggravated public order offence, convicted, and fined.

Try that; with an American flag, in front of veterans, in Trump’s flag-burning-ban-EO America.

[DemonTree]

Would you prefer that flag burning was not protected by the constitution, and Trump was acknowledged by all to have the power to mandate a 1 year penalty?

And do you think the UK should or should not penalise speech that offends members of various religions? Do you agree it is necessary for a free society that governments send the message that threats and violent attacks against people merely for speech will not be tolerated?

[crowmanyclouds]

@DemonTree

And do you think the UK should or should not penalise speech that offends members of various religions?

I’m not that sure, neither was, seemingly, the SCoTUS. But they decided, and I agree, that an utterance or act performed with a certain intent is not the same as that utterance or act performed without that intent.

Burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy strongly suggests a certain intent. The same way that burning a cross in front of particular houses strongly suggests a certain intent.

US law is very clear that an utterance or act performed with a certain intent is a criminal act.

[Miller]

@crowmanyclouds

Burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy strongly suggests a certain intent. The same way that burning a cross in front of particular houses strongly suggests a certain intent.

Is it? Cross-burning is highly associated with a specific, highly active terrorist organization that attacked and murdered hundreds (if not thousands) of Black Americans over the course of decades. What terrorist organization in the UK is specifically tied to Koran burning as a credible threat of violence against Muslims? How many acts of violence against Muslims were preceded by Koran burnings as a specific threat by the perpetrators of the violent act?

[crowmanyclouds]

I’m in no way suggesting they strongly suggest the same intent.
IMHO, One is throwing Molotov cocktails, the other is spreading gasoline, throwing a match and hoping you can outrun the fire you just intentionally started.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@DemonTree

IMO this misses the point. The UK currently has a better leader and government than the US. But it has worse laws, and far less legal protection for citizens

But it was exactly my point that what’s on the books matters little if those in power are willing and able to ignore it, hence you can’t just point to those books and decide who’s better off on that basis. Both laws and governments change, and are ultimately just as much an expression of social structures as they are instrumental in shaping them. That’s why I think you have to look at what actually happens to the people who try to exercise their civil liberties.

[DemonTree]

@Miller

@crowmanyclouds

Burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy strongly suggests a certain intent. The same way that burning a cross in front of particular houses strongly suggests a certain intent.

Is it? Cross-burning is highly associated with a specific, highly active terrorist organization that attacked and murdered hundreds (if not thousands) of Black Americans over the course of decades. What terrorist organization in the UK is specifically tied to Koran burning as a credible threat of violence against Muslims? How many acts of violence against Muslims were preceded by Koran burnings as a specific threat by the perpetrators of the violent act?

Quite. There is no such group, and no examples of violence against Muslims preceded by Quran burning.

Burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy suggests an intent to protest something the Turkish government is doing. Before travelling to London, Coskun posted on social media that he was going to burn a Quran “to protest the Islamist Government of Erdogan who has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime.”

And note that according to his own words, the attacker went and got a knife and attacked Coskun because he saw it as an attack on Islam.

The most disturbing part of the case is this line from the judge:

That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being
assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response]

Should the legality of speech depend on other people’s reaction to it? If people respond to speech with violence, should that be considered evidence that the speaker was inciting violence? What a terrible incentive to create!

Burning a flag is really not so different to burning a religious book. Burning a US flag outside the American embassy could reasonably be seen as a threat against Americans, so should it be a crime? Perhaps only if the flag burner also swears and calls Americans “Imperialist pigs” while doing so? What if a couple of Americans come by, feel distressed, and beat up the flag burner?

Or if we’re talking about intent, what about Antifa protesters outside ICE centres? Their intent is obviously to intimidate ICE agents going about their lawful duties, so it’s okay to arrest them, right?

@crowmanyclouds

I’m in no way suggesting they strongly suggest the same intent.
IMHO, One is throwing Molotov cocktails, the other is spreading gasoline, throwing a match and hoping you can outrun the fire you just intentionally started.

Is this someone you would consider to have been caught by the fire he intentionally started?

Salman Rushdie: Losing an eye upsets me every day

---

Both laws and governments change, and are ultimately just as much an expression of social structures as they are instrumental in shaping them.

This is what I was saying earlier in the thread. It’s why I’m so worried about the fall in support for free speech broadly defined, and the rise in pro-censorship attitudes, especially among the young. I’m afraid it’s a losing battle.

[griffin1977]

@crowmanyclouds

US law is very clear that an utterance or act performed with a certain intent is a criminal act

That is not the case at all. You need to show mens rea (guilty mind), as well as actus reus (guilty act) to convict someone of most crimes. So the prosecution will want to show intent in order to get a conviction, and evidence for that can that the form of protected speech, but that doesn’t make it illegal. You still need an actual crime that you are showing intent to commit.

Me saying I hate SDMB, everyone who runs it is a dickhead and I hope their server room burns down, is protected speech, and is protected by the 1st amendment. But if I then burn down the SDMB server room, then the prosecution can use my speech to show I had intent to commit the crime of arson. But the intent itself is not a crime

[griffin1977]

@Miller

Cross-burning is highly associated with a specific, highly active terrorist organization that attacked and murdered hundreds

If that’s the bar for criminalizing freedom of speech then you don’t have meaningful freedom of speech. There is almost no form of freedom of speech or religion that is not “highly associated” with some terrorist group or other.

Criticizing the government? There’s barely a terrorist group that’s not associated with that. So that’s a crime.

Speaking out against the oppression of a minority group? Plenty of terrorist groups are highly associated with that. Banned.

Muslim (or Christian) prayers. Duhhh of course they are associated with specific terrorist groups. They are crimes now

[Der_Trihs]

@griffin1977

If that’s the bar for criminalizing freedom of speech then you don’t have meaningful freedom of speech.

That’s an argument against freedom of speech, not for permitting cross burnings. If freedom of speech extends to death threats - which is what cross burnings are - then what’s so desirable about it?

At that point you might as well just stop talking and use guns.

[MrDibble]

@DemonTree

no examples of violence against Muslims preceded by Quran burning.

Quran burning is, in fact, fairly common procedure in West Bank settler attacks. I know if I were Muslim, I’d definitely associate Quran burning with imminent violence.

[Der_Trihs]

Absolutes don’t really work in real life, they lead to absurdities, atrocities and impossibilities. This includes rights. I don’t have an absolute right to free movement; I can’t just drive a car over people and claim it’s my right. Nor can I order someone loyal to me to murder someone and get out of a murder charge by claiming “free speech”.

There are and always will be limits to free speech in any functional society. The issue isn’t whether limits exist; the issue is where they should be. And death threats certainly seem a good candidate for such limits.

[griffin1977]

@Der_Trihs

freedom of speech extends to death threats

Who said anything about death threats? The argument was that things that speech that was “associated with a specific, highly active terrorist organization” are not protected speech and that is loop hole big enough to drive a truck through.

[Babale]

@DemonTree

@Miller

What terrorist organization in the UK is specifically tied to Koran burning as a credible threat of violence against Muslims? How many acts of violence against Muslims were preceded by Koran burnings as a specific threat by the perpetrators of the violent act?

Quite. There is no such group, and no examples of violence against Muslims preceded by Quran burning.

(Emphasis mine)

@MrDibble

@DemonTree

no examples of violence against Muslims preceded by Quran burning.

Quran burning is, in fact, fairly common procedure in West Bank settler attacks.

You’re talking about the West Bank of the Thames River here?

[MrDibble]

Missed that part. So a UK Muslim would have less cause to associate Quran desecration with imminent violence.

Not no cause, still - there’s a substantial Palestinian diaspora in the UK after all.

[Stanislaus]

I mean yes, but also: imagine your Muslim colleague comes to you visibly shaken and in response to your concerned inquiry tells you, “There was a strange man across the street who set fire to a Quran and started shouting horrible things about Islam, and now I’m scared to leave the building.”

Is your response going to be:

“I bet you are, that sounds awful, don’t worry me and Steve will walk you to the Tube and honestly, I think the police should be aware of this” or

“You fool, you nincompoop, you clown, there is no history in the UK of people burning the Quran before attacking Muslims, even suggesting that this man might represent a credible threat to you is unfounded nanny-state hysteria of the worst kind, honestly I think you owe him an apology for even suggesting that this behaviour might reveal ill-intent.”

[Mk_VII]

This sort of thing comes under the heading of ‘behaviour likely to occasion a breach of the peace’, under the Justices of the Peace Act, 1361, and amounts to ‘stop behaving like a dick’.

[Babale]

@Stanislaus

I mean yes, but also: imagine your Muslim colleague comes to you visibly shaken and in response to your concerned inquiry tells you, “There was a strange man across the street who set fire to a Quran and started shouting horrible things about Islam, and now I’m scared to leave the building.”

Is your response going to be:

“I bet you are, that sounds awful, don’t worry me and Steve will walk you to the Tube and honestly, I think the police should be aware of this” or

“You fool, you nincompoop, you clown, there is no history in the UK of people burning the Quran before attacking Muslims, even suggesting that this man might represent a credible threat to you is unfounded nanny-state hysteria of the worst kind, honestly I think you owe him an apology for even suggesting that this behaviour might reveal ill-intent.”

The same applies just as much if your Turkish friend is scared because someone is burning a Turkish flag outside the Turkish embassy. Whether or not you should be a massive raging asshole to your coworker (you should not) is a separate question from whether or not you should call the police to detain the man protesting outside.

[Stanislaus]

@Babale

The same applies just as much if your Turkish friend is scared because someone is burning a Turkish flag outside the Turkish embassy. Whether or not you should be a massive raging asshole to your coworker (you should not) is a separate question from whether or not you should call the police to detain the man protesting outside.

If someone is out in public conducting themselves in such a fashion as to cause legitimate fear in passers by, then that is a police matter. This is true if the action is burning a Turkish flag and shouting anti-Turkish insults outside the Turkish embassy, burning a Celtic strip and shouting anti-Catholic insults outside Parkhead, burning a cross and shouting racist insults outside someone’s home, burning an Oasis T-shirt and shouting anti-middle-class insults outside a Blur concert. If your aggressive and hateful behaviour is making people legitimately think you might hurt them, then you should quite rightly see the inside of a police interview room. There is not an exception to this marked “if you’re going after a religion, you can shit people right up and we can’t touch you”.